Talk:Equivalent dose

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Radiology / Toxicology Low‑importance 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.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Radiology task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

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]

(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)

You're looking for physics and getting medicine. At once less precise, yet more crucial. Just trust your doctor. He'll know where to cut and he'll do it neatly in integers and fortuitous powers of 10. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.126.240 (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is not necessary. It will be confusing to have description of different dose quantities under one heading. I have produced a graphic based on ICRU report 57 which clarifies the different dose quantities. Note there are other quantities, but this is a complex subject and therefore some of its complexity has to be revealed.Dougsim (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After finding this article blithely confusing the two, I rewrote it to make the point, then found I was wrong. I finally went to look at the law http://www.hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/wshp/radiation/10cfr835/835text_nov282006.doc and some of the literature. The RBE is what normally appears in the law and literature as the quality factor Q. The weighting factor really is something else-- a factor which takes each tissue and attempts to assign its fractional importance to the body as a whole, when it comes to radiation. For example, the weighting factor for the gonads is taken to be 0.25 (i.e., 25% = a quarter of the body's "sensitivity" radiation-wise), the breasts 0.15, the marrow 0.2, and so on, and these all add up to the whole body 1.0 or 100%. None of this has to do with quality factor Q or RBE. So all this must now be disintangled. I'm going to first revert to the previous version, then go on to fix the errors in THAT. Hold off on reverting me for a few minutes while I undo the worst damage. Most of it is NOT my making! SBHarris 01:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The formula:

${\displaystyle H_{T}=\sum _{R}W_{R}\cdot D_{T,R}\ }$

is very confusing. It has the form:

"total energy/kg = sum of unitless tissue-specific weighting factors multiplied by energy/kg for each tissue type"

How can you add up specific energies unless each kg simultaneously has each tissue type? (Like partial pressures or partial concentrations.) But this makes no sense.

Alternately, since in reality each kilo has (presumably) only one tissue type, we should take a weighted average. This would require that the W_T add up to one.

Are the W_T also intended to express the sensitivity of different tissue types? Then the W_T would contain (in a hidden way) additional factors and could add up to some fixed number other than one.

The W_T would then have a dual purpose: weighted average and additional factors. All unitless. But none of this is explained. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Equivalent dose. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121116084754/http://www.icrp.org:80/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20103 to http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20103

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

should be something like Radioactivity can be measured in many ways; a biologically relevant way that lets us compare radiation is to measure how much energy is actually absorbed, and then correct tht for how different types of radiation affect biological systems. or something like that; pleae, please please remove the confusing dose and stochastic stuff till later

PS I have a PhD inn molecular biology and often have to explain complex DNA stuff to engineers I know what I am talking about in terms of pitching this at the right level thanks you [i know you snotty types will say, his spelling grammar is poor, so we can ignore him; tpical arrogance of those who can't see forest for trees) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BIPM holds that the units have no plural (but meters, seconds ... were this would be ridiculous) Suppongoche (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13 26

_=_

15 2409:4043:287:9F99:0:0:F72:68B1 (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]