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?"

(The following question has been moderated, to make it less rude) Do physicists consider 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 engineering.

Eqivalent dose is radiobiology term, rather than fundamental physics.Martin.speleo (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before this article is merged, we might consider the data. A neutron of 100 keV to 2 MeV has a value of 20. When the neutron loses energy and falls below 100 keV, it suddenly changes value to 10. Again, falling below 10 keV causes the neutron to change value to 5. This has all the appearance of successive quantum leaps, and the fact that the leaps happen at 10 keV and 100 keV would be one of the great coincidences of nature, unless the eV were defined on the basis of the damage neutrons do, or, more probably, unless science is not what is intended.
Another thing to consider is that gamma rays, X-rays, and electrons all have the same level of 1, regardless of energy. This would imply that a person who acquires a static charge from a carpet is being harmed. The number of electrons in the charge is equivalent to an equal number of gamma rays striking the person.
In all, thirteen assignments are made to different radiological emissions. All happen to be integers of values 1, 2, 5, 10, or 20. One does not come across numbers like these in nature very often. In my experience, five, ten and twenty are less common than pi or e.
The data in this article is a set of guesses. It should not be called scientific because to do so will only give the disciplines involved bad names. And I would disagree with the above comment - engineering is not this fluffy either.
In fact, since it is being treated as science in ways that are (perhaps unintentionally) misleading, shouldn't a caveat be given? Or perhaps the article should have a section considering whether the concept might, strictly speaking, not represent science (at least at its present stage of development)? Certainly it has been criticized as "fluffy," and though that is a rather unscientific term itself, it is possibly closer to the truth than the values in the table.--ghh 16:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarcapsule (talk • contribs) 16:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I agree with Kieran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.156.231 (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David S Graff. Martin.speleo (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merger. Any non-expert trying to learn what "radiation dose" means does not know what the differences are between absorbed dose, equivalent dose and effective dose; and s/he has to jump between three articles to find out which one is the one that s/he is really interested in. Having three separate articles, each one discussing what the defined term is NOT, is repetitive and confusing. A common article discussing all three and the relevant basic concepts of radiobiology would be much more useful. 13:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 (talk)

I entirely disagree with the merger, these are connected but separate concepts any convolution only further 'fuzzies' matters. Changing page to discover which concept is required for a laypersons use only further solidifies their confidence that their choice is correct. A stub under the title 'Radiation Dose' breifly explaining them with links to each would be acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by morbidslug (no wiki account as yet)

No way.