Talk:Roentgen equivalent man

message: This needs elaboration.  "Nothing other than blood changes" does not sound like something to be whimsical about if one gets that rad dose.  D: What kind of changes?  —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 13:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong article.  Such elaboration belongs in radiation poisoning or other linked articles.  Jim.henderson (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood changes 

message: The first part has a claim that 1 rem carries 0.055% extra cancer risk and refer to [2]. In fact [2] explicitly states (Appendix 4.1) that determining cancer risks for dosages below 0.1Sv, i.e. 10 rem, is not statistically possible.
Further in the text there's a lot of mumbo-jumbo about "consensus model", which is not properly referenced. The reference is still to [2] which totally misleading, because [2] is not a scientific study, but a policy recommendation. Also [2] is not available for free in English.
I suggest to remove 1 rem cancer claim and seriously rework the rest.
69.143.38.107 (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus claim and wrong reference 

message: I agree. Cancer risks depend strongly on type of radiation (alpha, beta, UV, X-rays, gamma, protons, neutrons), how it is delivered (ingested radionuclides versus external source), which body parts and tissues are exposed, and how fast the dose is delivered. One rem in a prompt dose as from a CAT scan is more dangerous than one rem gradually received over a year. And while there are definite normative or legal exposure limits, I'm not sure there's much consensus on how these relate to actual risks. And cancer isn't even the only risk involved. This is a complicated subject. Concepts such as kerma and biological equivalence are omitted completely although they're fundamental to defining rad, gray, rem, and sievert. Jessegalebaker (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concurrence 

message: This discussion is conjecture and not cited:
"The rem is defined since 1976 as equal to 0.01 sievert, which is the more commonly used SI unit outside of the United States. A number of earlier definitions going back to 1945 were derived from the roentgen unit, which was named after Wilhelm Röntgen, a German scientist who discovered X-rays." 
People who use REM do not derive REM from sieverts. This statement should either be provided a citation or eliminated. In practice, the REM continues to be used from the Roentgen model and definition. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission provides a cite-able discussion here that usage remains commonplace, but without any history:
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/measuring-radiation.html
As a broad statement, the people who just so happened to define their derived seiverts conveniently as "100 REM" well after the use of REM was commonplace do not get to redefine the REM as 0.01 seiverts. That's just a silly way to rewrite history, and that kind of thing certainly has no place on Wikipedia.
Suggest the following revision:
"The rem is defined since 1945 as derived from the roentgen unit, which was named after Wilhelm Röntgen, the German scientist who discovered X-rays. The SI unit of dose equivalent, the seivert, was defined in 1976 and is equal to 100 rem."
72.81.147.56 (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition paragraph 

message: I notice the SI base units of both rem and sievert are given as m^2 s^-1, though they are also said to differ by a factor of 100. I do not know how these are defined, but perhaps someone has a resource with the correct definition for these?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.197.31 (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The sievert is defined at Sievert#Definition. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units of rem vs. sievert 

message: "There is no exact conversion from hours to years because of leap years, but approximate conversions are:"
I don't see the relevance of this sentence on the topic. It feels that it would already be understood by readers who know dates. I suggest the removal of this. Proffypaul (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence removal