Talk:Equivalent dose

message: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weighting factors for tissues are not the same as Q/RBE's

message: The formula:
: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)
thread_title:  Formula is confusing. Could be better explained 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: intro to complex for a general encylopedia

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

message: 13 26
 _=_
15 2409:4043:287:9F99:0:0:F72:68B1 (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fractions