Talk:Sievert

message: The value
160	mSv:	chronic dose to lungs over one year smoking 1.5 packs of cigarettes per day, mostly due to inhalation of Polonium-210 and Lead-210[47][48]
is too large by three orders of magnitude. A more realistic value would be in the range of µSv instead of mSv.
Do the math... or use a search engine of Your choice:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672370/
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4803637  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.68.78.221 (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to comment that neither citation mentions polonium, either. Jbaber (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Tobacco kills

message: This article is surprisngly unhelpful. After events such asChernobyl, Three Mile Island and more recently Fukushima the media have quoted units of radiation measurement in milisieverts and microsieverts. What readers want to know is what is the difference? And what is the scale of risk (eg compared to a chest x-ray, exposure from a transatlantic flight, living in Dartmoor England or in poarts of India  where background radiation is far higher than the norm). Can someone please make this article accessible?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.97 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: This is incorrect, but I don't know how to correct it. The gray (Gy) is correctly defined; and the sievert is defined from the gray by multiplying by a radiation weighting factor. The radiation weighting factor is defined as 1 for gamma radiation. Thus for gammas, 1 Sv = 1 Gy = 100 rad, which is approximately 87 roentgen (depending on the material.) If someone wants more info and can correct the entry, please email me at mcnaught@unm.edu .
----
I have made an attempt to construct a more accurate version. --Sievert 18:17Zeroidle (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: In the following, 50% or more lethality is alleged for more than 3 and more than 4 Sv. Which is it?
More than 3 Sv will lead to death in less than two months in more than 80% of cases, and much over 4 Sv is more likely than not to cause death.
--Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: I've seen different tables of quality factors, and whatever values are used should be referenced.  The best source I've found (not even an SI source!) is at ; a more authoritative version would be great.  Note that this version has much more detail, disagrees on the QF for neutrons, and doesn't suggest a method for in-between values (that I noticed).
CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality factor

message: How come the relative N values are ranged from high value to low value, e.g. 0.3 – 0.03?  It just looks odd.  Wouldn't 0.03–0.3 make more sense, or is that just a regional bias? /85.228.39.223 11:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: N values for other species

message: I'm intrigued by the following statement: "There is some controversy that the Q or RBE for alpha radiation is underestimated due to mistaken assumptions in the original work in the 1950s that developed those values." Have you got a reference for that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.45.14.168 (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Q controversy for alpha particles

message: How does this scheme handle differences between people?  Does a postmenopausal woman still have an N of 0.20 applied to her gonads?  Does a non-smoker still have the higher 0.12 value for the lungs?  If a nuclear power company knows that a woman has had a hysterectomy and has no gonads, can they assign her to work longer because she doesn't take that dosage?  (what if you're comparing two postmenopausal women...?) etc. Wnt (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual differences? 

message: Presumably the time period over which the dose is absorbed contributes somehow?  Does 'acute' mean 'delivered over a short (to be qualified) time period'.  'acute'='sharp' suggests this.  If so, article should say so, as this is a medical term or art.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.139.136 (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acute full body equivalent dose 

message: I am looking at this article trying to determine if sieverts are an instanteneous or cumulative amounts.  
If the radiation source is emitting x sieverts and you are exposed to it for y hours,   did you get a dose of xy sievert-hours ?
Or is the source emitting at x sieverts/hour  and you are exposed for y hours,  you get xy sieverts ?
It seems impossible that the rate of emission is measured in sieverts  and the cumulative dose also in sieverts,  thats what is being quoted and makes no sense. Eregli bob (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the TMI example, it says that it's an average. For any particular individual, the dose would depend on specifics for that individual (how much time spent at what distances from what particular radiation sources, and other factors). I take that example as reading that, on average, persons living with 16 km of TMI received .08 mSv, with no more than 1 mSv having been received by any single individual. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it a time rate or cumulative ? 

message: I have found very quite different values:
Chest radiography is 0.1 mSv 
Natural background radiation is between 1 and 3 mSv/year
check these links:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Radiation.html
http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=chestrad
Also I noticed that the various translations of the page show very different values.
Zeroidle (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a US government source that said a single film from a chest x-ray is 0.1 mSv. Perhaps a typical exam includes more than one film? I found another source that said an x-ray was 0.5 mSv, as well as others that quoted 0.4 mSv. Unfortunately, I've closed those windows and don't want to go check again. There may not be a "right" answer, though, and a range may be better than a single number. I'll let others argue this out. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dose Benchmarks 

message: As a scientist used to thinking about dpm, I would like to see some examples of Sv to dpm conversions,
I understand that there are a lot of adjustment factors; but I think this would give a nice, concreteness to the idea of the Sv
I also dont think the article should be split - it reads very nicely as it is; splitting would really reduce it to a stub - please leave it alone !!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.9.151 (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But shouldn't articles on other units of radiation (rems, curies, rads, grays, etc.) also have a list of benchmarks, too? Why should all the benchmarks be focused on the sieverts page, or be duplicated and simultaneously updated across multiple pages? 98.246.191.164 (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: examples in dpm

message: The quoted source USA Today does not support the statement the Japanese Government uses censorship. Radiation measurements from the surrounding areas are in fact available (see these english translations). I am also not sure if such information is helpful in an article about a measurement unit. --132.234.227.1 (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, this article is about Sieverts, we don't have to mention Fukushima at all. If we do we certainly shouldn't qualify it with any statements that add uncertainty. Such statements belong in 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents‎. --Pontificalibus (talk)
Repaired example according to sources from 8K to 1K mSv/h  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.10.222 (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fukushima example and censorship  

message: What does the "Single dose example"
:Average dose to people living within 16 km of Three Mile Island accident: 0.08 mSv; maximum dose: 1 mSv
mean? Is it a lifetime dose - or should it be moved to the "Yearly dose examples", say? I've checked the reference (and Three Miles island accident). I think it may be an accumulated value for a person living in the region through the accident, which should include absorption the rest of that person's life if there are still elevated radiation levels. But I am not sure - can this be cleared up?--Nø (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't read this as an assertion about the accumulated dose for any particular person. Rather, I read it as an estimate of the average dose accumulated as a result of the event by persons living within 16 km of Three Mile Island accident (roughly the total dose accumulated by all such individual persons divided by the number of such individual persons, but probably having been estimated based on some sampling and some statistical computations rather than by straightforward measurements and simple calculation of an arithmetic average). Some such persons will have accumulated more than the average and some will have accumulated less, depending on their particular individual circumstances. The supporting source cited presents it as follows: "The average radiation dose to people living within 10 miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual.  Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by U.S. residents in a year." Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right, but that does not answer my question about the period of time considered.--Nø (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dose examples 

message: ...and I'd be delighted if the banana was used to show the relationship between these all.
Various news organizations quote "radioactivity" in their favourite expert's terms. And most of the wikipedia pages for these units seem to be devoted to explaining whether the unit is SI, or deprecated. This page thankfully explains Gys and rems, but bequerels are still a mystery.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.138.245 (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The switch at Japanese HNK World TV from reporting microsieverts and millesieverts to reporting becquerels is confusing to folks who are trying to follow radioactivity in the news. We need a way to convert from one system to another or to make rough equivalents with respect to radioactivity levels presented in different scales. A wikipedia article seems ideal to provide this information -- and a real service to the public. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

text: It's not different units expressing measurement of the same thing in different ways, it is different units expressing different things. I found Table 1 in section 5 of this source useful, as well as the WP articles on Curie/Becquerel, Rad (unit)/Gray (unit), Roentgen equivalent man, Ionizing radiation#Units and Absorbed dose articles helpful. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need new page to explain Relationships between gray, Seivert, Bequerel, curies, roentgens, rems, and every other term used anywhere in Wikipedia for radiation. 

message: There's already a radiation dose chart on this article: Orders of magnitude (radiation).  It seems wiser to take radiation dose information here and move it there, than to start up another chart here.  After all, this article is about "sieverts", which is a unit of radiation.  I don't think you'd get a list of how tall things are in an article on "meters".  (I could be wrong - I haven't checked.) 137.132.250.14 (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is Randall's chart - it appeared after the above discussion. I still think we should avoid the wiki self-reference in the chart source. Perhaps a thumb image could be used on Sievert page, as the concept is not as readily understandable as height or meters. TGCP (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adding to the previous point, Randall's chart contains the warning: "I'm sure I've added in lots of mistakes; it's for general education only. If you are basing radiation safety procedures on an Internet PNG image and things go wrong, you have noone to blame but yourself".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:EE27:3801:18A9:8877:C45A:AA10 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's already a radiation dose chart 

message: I have noticed that in the "single dose examples" section, there is a mix-up of using equivalent doses and effective doses: the dental x-ray dose and the mammogram dose are stated as equivalent doses (see the reference) whereas the CT doses and the radiation limits used effective dose (ie whole body doses). This may for example cause the reader to believe that having a mammogram is associated with the same cancer risk as (approximately) a brain CT. For the mammogram example, the breasts receive 3 mSv, but the effective dose is instead 3 x 0.05 mSv = 0.15 mSv and this should be the value that is used for comparisons (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_dose) Tobbel swe (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For example this article dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2481071451 (Mettler et al. Effective Doses in Radiology and Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine: A Catalog, July 2008 Radiology, 248, 254-263.) finds an average effective dose of 0.4 mSv based on reported doses in the litterature. Tobbel swe (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. Article fixed.--Yannick (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The single dose for mammogram is wrong 

message: This article is about the sievert. We have numerous examples do draw from all supported by multiple reliable referenced sources. We do not need to include the latest reported measurements from the Fukushima I nuclear accidents, especially if those figures are only supported by a single source, or non-English sources, or if there is any uncertaintiy about their accuracy.--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore the article currently states the highest reported numbers from fukushima being 8217 mSv/h while both linked sources say it's 1000 (which was later on denied anyway). There's almost no sources for those 8217 mSv to be found. Some indicate that those 8217 may have initially been a translation error between 8.217 and 8,217 and that it was actually only 8 msv. Should be corrected by someone who can.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.91.146 (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples and Fukushima

message: When I was young and carried my slide rule uphill through the snow both to and from school we measured radiation exposure in rems.  The Fukushima incident is a opportunity to introduce this SI unit to us old hippies who have not kept up with nuclear medicine.  So, when the article implies that radiation is measured in rems in the United States, there is an oppotunity to popularize the SI unit.  I never edit an article unless I have an exceptionally high understanding of the topic.  Obviously, this case does not meet that standard, but I do encourage those of you who know more than I do to do so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikesartin (talk • contribs) 04:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fukushima incident has caused a lot of old people (like me) wondering what a sievert is. 

message: It seems that there is  a discrepancy of 100 times in the value of the dose received as a result of eating one banana, as quoted in this here article and as quoted in the article on Banana Equivalent Dose (BED). This here article states it is 0.0001 mSv, the article on Banana Equivalent Dose states it is 0.001 μSv.
Explanation:  this here article states that 
:---Quote begins---
* Eating one banana: 0.0001 mSv
:---Quote ends---
The article on Banana Equivalent Dose (BED) states that:
:---Quote begins---
On average banana contains about half a gram of potassium. Therefore if a typical person (70kg) is exposed to all of the radiation coming from one banana then the dose they will be absorbing is of order 10-13 watts per kg (or gray per second). Since 40K decay emits an electron or positron, the weighting factor of 1 is used to quantify the basic biological effect; the equivalent dose rate is of order 0.0001 μSv per hour.
A person's body maintains potassium under homeostasis, at a fairly constant level. Therefore, eating an extra banana will not cause more potassium to be assimilate into the body than would otherwise have occurred. Instead it will cause the body to excrete potassium more quickly. Because the half-life of 40K is so long compared to biological time-scales and because the ratio in food is the same as that in the body, the isotopic ratio will stay the same. Therefore, eating a banana will only cause a temporary increase in the quantity of radioisotope enclosed by the body. Estimating that it takes an average of 8 hours to excrete excess potassium that was consumed from one banana, the total additional dose of radiation will around 0.001 μSv.
:---Quote ends---
I propose that a competent editor checks again the facts and corrects one of the two articles (it most likely will be this article, since the article on Banana Equivalent Dose quotes the calculation method, which is unlikely to be incorrect, from what I can make of it.
:I've commented on that article's talk page at Talk:Banana equivalent dose#Apparent Original research vs. WP:V and WP:DUE.  Some reliable sources which support an assertion that a BSD is roughly 0.1 microsievert are mentioned in that talk page comment. Please note WP:CIRCULAR. WP articles are not reliable sources. The content of WP articles is not to be relied upon. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly Incorrectly Quoted Value for Banana Equivalent Dose in Sv (discrepancy of one hundred times) 

message: The table "Equivalency Weighting Factors" in the "Definition" section is a duplication of the "Q values" and "N values" sections.  Should one of them be removed?  217.33.231.34 (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication of Q/N values 

message: Please see: BIPM SI brochure page No. 69. for name: dose equivalent, symbol: H, unit: sievert, its symbol: Sv 
ZJ (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed quantity and unit equations 

message: What is the background radiation for a marine organism (deep water/shallow water) or a human swimmer/diver?  One source tells me granite or coffee is 1000 Bq/kg whereas seawater is 10,000 Bq/kg.  Correcting for density, I'm guessing the marine background is x3 the terrestrial background, but you'd also need to correct for Q.  Most organisms on the planet are marine, so marine background is a useful reference point. — MaxEnt 20:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Seawater equivalent

message: In recent days radioactive hazard has become a major topic of discussion world wide. The attention the subject gets is mainly due to the Fukushima nuclear situation, that triggered a global panic, overshadowing the natural disaster that caused it. The media have been very active in informing the population as best they could, but clearly not in respect to the actual hazard. Processed results of measurement were expessed in sievert value and presented to support the story. 
What is not generally understood is the fact that a sievert is not at all meant to be used like that. A sievert result is primarily a policy instrument, meant to give decision makers something to guide and justify their decisions by. It is not in any way a conclusive measure of any actual radioactive hazard. There is no such thing as a 'sievert meter'. Presenting it as if it were a straight measure result is highly misleading. It is the result of a calculation on the basis of a number of subjective assumptions, adding together the presumed effect of many entirely different sources of various kinds of radiation. It's  like adding apples to oranges to bananas to cherry pie in desperate need for a result. This is one of the reasons why the results seem so confusing at times. 
Since Wikipedia's sievert article is one of the most frequently visited pages in search of understanding the unit, by many who can't read the value of the unit out of the article, this should actually be noted in the articles very first line. Futhermore the exact significance of the unit should be calculated statisticly, envolving more complex statistics than i can provide. What is known is that this significance is way lower than media presentation suggests, publicly spreading a sense of safety that is not  justified by the calculated result. 
Bchtd1parrot (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good insight, if valid, and it may very well be valid. Its validity, however, needs to be established not by forceful talk page argument but, rather, by citation of reliable supporting sources. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A sievert is not in any way a conclusive measure of any actual radioactive hazard ! 

message: This article really needs at least a brief mention of cancer risks associated with different exposure levels. Shame that there is so much controversy (on wikipedia) about that. IDK112 (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer 

message: According to Christopher Busby, at low doses, and dose rates, there is much less data, and much more controversy, regarding the possibility of cardiac and teratogenic effects, and the modelling of internal dose.[9] See the linear no-threshold hypothesis—however, this hypothesis was never based on true "low dose" studies[10] and Busby was discredited by the British Health Service for data falsifications and exploitation of Japanese parents after Fukushima emissions (2011).[11]
:The linear no treshold hypothesis is Busby's theory that has been discredited and was based on data falsification? Or it is a hypothesis supported by the British Health Service that is not based on true studies and when Busby revealed this the British tried to discredit him with false allegations? Either expand it or remove it, no use in having a cryptic statement that mentions controversy, hypothesis, falsification and exploitation without explaining any of these.  Ssscienccce (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversy, hypothesis, falsification and exploitation 

message: I went and added the U.S. regulations on maximum equivalent doses permitted... And by copying these regs I noticed that the regs are very specific on how they state the limits. They are in the habit of correctly stating, for example, 
:The total effective dose equivalent being equal to 5 rems (0.05 Sv)
Notice that those four words all convey the proper meaning to the 0.05 Sv specific limit. We are not left wondering if the limit would pop up in grays or mR, etc. The limits had to be in Sv or rem. It's funny that the spec says "rems" but that is only slightly sloppy.
But browsing through the chart of the article, I notice that we say this sloppy sentence:
:80 	μSv: 	average dose to people living within 16 km of Three Mile Island accident[14]
Well, that is not very specific. Do we mean their "dose" or their "total effective dose equivalent"? Dose to me means the Absorbed dose and is measured in grays or rads. So by not saying "equivalent" I fill in the "absorbed" part and the chart gets confusing. The U.S. wording especially shows me that the word dose by itself means something that needs to be modified... they put the "equivalent" adjective after the noun... "dose equivalent." I think the article would be better if the word "equivalent" was used adjacent to "dose." Why have a reference work like Wikipedia if it is going to use lazy or sloppy wording?
Furthermore, why did we quote an "average dose"? Shouldn't we care about individuals of the public, whereas averages work out to be dangerous when we are talking about people's health? I seem to think that the word "average" indicates to me that someone synthesized a stupid and worthless statistic. I want to know the highest dose equivalent received by a member of the public. Obviously if two people glued to the fence got 50,000 times the dose equivalent of the guy sleeping in his basement 10 miles away, I want to know about the men on the fence. I like to saw logs! (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absorbed dose is the default... Need a cleanup 

message: "If the equivalent dose is uniform throughout the organism, that is, if the radiation source equally impacts on the entire surface of the body, it will be equal to the body tissue specific effective dose."
It seems to me that there are several problems here.  
1) The concept of uniformity.  I do not think that uniformity over the surface of an organism is intended here.  I suspect that this should read ".. that is, if the radiation source has delivered equal energy to equal increments of mass throughout the body...".  I have changed the text to the latter quote.
2)As I understand this, to get "body tissue specific effective dose" from equivalent dose, you must multiply the former by a tissue weighting factor which is generally not unity, so, even if the dose is uniform throughout the body, the "body tissue specific effective dose" will not equal the effective dose.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.59.93 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The tissue weighting factors add up to one, so if all tissues receive the same equivalent dose by mass, the effective dose is the same as the equivalent dose. −Woodstone (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this Correct ?  I suspect not ! 

message: The examples list includes dental X-rays, mammograms, and CT of the colon.  In these cases only part of the body is irradiated.  Do the quoted figures of dose relate to the mass of tissue irradiated (i.e in calculating J/kg, is the mass used that of the irradiated tissue only), or is the dose an average dose for the whole body, the mass used in the calculation being that of the whole body ?  Clearly the former form of calculation will give a higher figure for dose than that obtained if the whole body mass is used.  Unless this point is made clear, the figures given in these 3 cases are meaningless.  To clarify this, could someone please explain how dose in Sv is calculated in the case of a single dental X-ray ? AJS
This is the expression of the effective dose, which is not wholly dependent on how much is irradiated. What is important is the irradiation received and its effect. All effects are summated to an overall expression of risk, which is the effective dose. This is shown in the graphic. It should be noted that the ICRP figures are averages taken over the world population based on decades of research, and are conservatively fixed.
Dougsim (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial Body Irradiation 

message: I have put operational and protection quantities and their relationship to physical quantities and instrument measurements into the article in order to tie up the many loose ends and to make the article coherent. Although the article may appear more complex, this is a true reflection of the complexity of use of the sievert.
I have added the CIPM definition and tied this in to the work of the ICRU and ICRP. I have devised a graphic for this based on the work of others leading back to ICRU report 57, as there are some difficult concepts. I have added in tissue effects for completeness but tried to avoid excessive duplication. Dougsim (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operational and protection quantities 

message: There is some confusion here!
The conversion factor 1 Si = 100 REM is aproximately true, BUT since they have modivied the wheigt factors a little it is not compleatly true. For mormal use it is good enough, but not for precision use.
Seniorsag (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sievert-REM 

message: I note that although there's a reference to the RadSafe mailing list, we have no article on it. We probably should have and soon will I hope. I've redlinked to it in anticipation. Andrewa (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RadSafe 

message: We've got "ionising" and "ionizing" all over the place. As of January 2016, it was completely "z" except for one "s", but since then a bunch of "s" have crept in. There's no nationalistic component to the article's topic itself, so I assume we should go with original form and inertia. I plan to flip it all to "s" in a day or two unless someone disagrees (or beats me to making that edit:) DMacks (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! AFAICT, it stayed British from its original off-the-wall wrong stub to actual article status. Kolbasz (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaotic [[WP:ENGVAR]] 

message: Has there been any proposal to include the wisdom about nonlinear effects on the measurement of radiation effects? There are several works on low-dosage effects, like . How about the amplitute form of the radiation applied - does it make no difference if the radiation occurs in several short higher-energy bursts or in one slight sinus-formed curve, as long as they have the same integral value? Any links to works on this subject are welcome. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonlinear effects 

message: Why the two are different ?
I wrote "810	nSv/h avg	Next to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant sarcophagus ", as can be seen in the References.
But when I watch this video, it tells another data ?
Check  at 5:36 . 
The time different between the two pictures is five years, but I assume it's not causing the different in the data .Eliran t (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Maybe the Chernobyl New Safe Confinement that was installed in this time plays a role in the lower dose rate levels? I am not sure. --Ita140188 (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Didn't thought about that. So, we can add another row to the table. All the point with the sarcophagus was to make less radiation fly out from the destroyed core. Eliran t (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  miss-info 

message: This template has been added, but no detail about why. What is the problem with the lead?
Dougsim (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead rewrite template august 2022 

message: In the article, it now says: Nonfatal dose to Anatoli Bugorski who was struck with a proton beam from a Particle Accelerator through the head while cleaning the U-70 synchrotron on the 13th of July 1978. He is still alive to this day.
Problems: Original measures this dose in röntgen, which is i believe just the measurement read using a gamma-ray capable geigermeter kindof? This seems to have been converted to rem, which is probably kindof accurate (probably actually).. but not really. There is also probably a conversion error, as 100 rem = 1 sievert, which makes his dose not 200-300 sievert, but 2000-3000 sievert (e.g. 200 000/100 = 2000, not 200.). Also maybe Bragg peak is a matter of life and death in his case, but not even mentioned. Finally the source is not the best, the original article reference an archived russian page. The source in Sievert article is malfunctioning.
I suggest we remove this entry. Its not good enough. Or someone fix it.
:I am removing this reference now. It says in the archived wired article that it is the rad measurement of the beam, not his recevied dose.  · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The nonfatal dose to Bugorski 

message: Google isn't properly giving me results on the difference between these two notations, so I was wondering what the differences was, as it isn't explained in the article either. Google keeps giving me results for the lowercase version no matter what I do, which is why I'm asking. 71.90.116.133 (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: mSv = millisievert (1/1000 of a sievert), MSv = megasievert (a million sievert). This follows the convention for metric prefixes (similar to mW, milliwatt vs MW, megawatt). In the case of the Sievert, 1 sievert is already a huge amount of radiation likely to kill you, so a megasievert is a ridiculous amount. As the article reports, there is a rate of 5 MSv per year inside (!) the core of the Fukushima reactor, so it would still take you over 2 months to reach 1 megasievert if you were literally inside the core of the reactor. Ita140188 (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  mSv vs. MSv