Talk:Dosimetry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Question regrading organ dose weighting values[edit]

Does anyone know where the table of organ dose weighting factors comes from? It does not seem to be consistent with either ICRP-26 or ICRP-60. For example, ICRP-26 gives the factor for the gonads as 0.25 and ICRP reduces this to 0.20 but the table in the article gives a factor of just 0.08!In addition, the coefficients don't add up to 1, as they must! --PloniAlmoni (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I AGREE WITH MR. PLONI. A LOT OF CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE ACCORDING TO ICRP 103. THE TABLE SHOULD BE AS FOLLOWS Gonads 0.08 Breast 0.12 Red bone marrow 0.12 Lung 0.12 Thyroid 0.04 Bone surfaces 0.01 Colon 0.12 Stomach 0.12 Bladder 0.04 Oesophagus 0.04 Liver 0.04 Brain - Kidney - Salivary Glands 0.01 Skin 0.01 Remainder 0.12

Reference: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/secys/2008/secy2008-0092/enclosure.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.30.2 (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


See ICRP-119
Tissue weighting factors
Tissue or organ wT PwT
Gonads 0.20 0.20
ExampleRed marrow, colon, lung, stomach 0.12 0.48
Bladder, breast, liver, oesophagus, thyroid, remainder 0.05 0.30
Skin, bone surface 0.01 0.02
Total 1.0
sunja (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Radiobiology?[edit]

I would have though that the discussion of radiobiology, (eg. effective dose and equivalent dose) should occur elsewhere. This article should keep itself to discussion of how to measure dose, and link to the relevant radiobiology pages. Martin.speleo (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

^^Partially agree. Short definitions with links to the appropriate pages.

definitions of dose[edit]

I have needed to make a number of changes to this very muddled and inaccurate page. The measures of dose were not defined properly and there appeared to be confusion between dose equivalent (an archaic term that is rarely used now) and effective dose. Calculation of E is based on equivalent dose (in Sv), not absorbed dose (in Gy) as stated. The standard of English was quite poor and the page would be of little use to a lay person (e.g. someone with no previous knowledge who is concerned about a dose they may have received). The page needs a lot more work, including insertion of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xapbpoh (talkcontribs) 10:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added two graphics which I hope go a way to sorting out confusion on dose quantities, also some text. Dougsim (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Merging with radiation exposure monitoring[edit]

I agree with the proposal to merge. Dosimetry is the science/discipline which deals with radiation exposure monitoring, so all relevant information from that article should be within dosimetry. However, there is some localised information which I think will be of little general interest. Dougsim (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Having spent some time on a large overhaul of dose quantities and radiological protection pages, I now think it is best to not merge as the other article is a managerial system which will confuse general understanding of dosimetry. I have put an explanation in the lead of the other article explaining what it is really about. I have removed merge template Dougsim (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dosimetry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dosimetry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)