Talk:Rad (radiation unit)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Origin of the term

Rad is commonly believed to be derived from the acronym Radiation Absorbed Dose. This BBC The Measurement of Radioactivity article says that this is a common mistake and that its originally just a made up word, while Dictionary.com says (apparently citing Douglas Harper's etymology dictionary) that it is derived from the abbreviation of radiation. Sxoa (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term

Article states that the U.S. is "the only country to still use the rad." In the U.S. medical community the rad is officially considered obsolete, in favor of the Gray (unit) or centigray, although some older physicians use the term out of habit. In Hall's textbook Radiobiology for the Radiologist, Grays and centigrays are primarily used.

Rad is still used by and large in the space industry. In part the industry can be very slow to accept change and part because of the legacy tools and data that are already available. In this case it is not so clear whetehr the benefits of standardising outwiegh the cost and risks of converting all available data and systems currently in place.

I have removed for now any mention that the US is the only country to still use the rad since there is no cited evidence given. Js229 09:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lethal dose

What is the lethal exposure level in rads for humans? — Loadmaster 21:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eh??

Yes, another wikipedia entry that literally say nothing. How many RADs make a REM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.197.44 (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

biological effects

Added a link to Radiation Poisoning. Rads (and rems) are still there in legacy literature.

Unit Conversion

How does one convert between the different measurements? How much is rad compared to gray, rem, and Sv? - Commandur (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's in the article. "100 rad are equal to 1 gray". use wolfram alpha for easy conversions if that's what you want. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just didn't notice that rem and Sv were modified units to show the effects on tissue. Basically, they have an "extra" variable. I dropped in to the sievert discussion page for help on this "quality factor". - Commandur (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

krad-Si

In reading the literature, I keep coming across the term krad-Si or krad(Si). Presumably, a krad is a kilorad, but what does the Si signify? Rwflammang (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Si refers to the material of interest, silicon in this case. It's often seen in combination with radiation hardness of electronic components. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.141.200 (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What..

If the 'new unit' is equivalent to a precise amount of the old unit, then what purpose is there in having a new one? It's like that CE/BCE business. Absolutely no change except revisionism for its own sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.165 (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That's probably why the new unit is not widely adopted in industry. Changing units costs money and adds no value. Rwflammang (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like all other SI units, the "new units" are the most widely adopted in industry, except in the USA which insists on clinging to obsolete systems.--Yannick (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources

My edits have been reverted twice in two days. The latest occasion was done with a note that the "cited source is reputable" presumably meaning that mine are not. I contest this. The sources that I added for my edits are as follows:

the Federal Register
the Code of Federal Regulations
a textbook written by a professor of radiology
the Princeton University radiation safety guide

The alternate text that I dispute is supported by the following sources:

an internet mailing list archive that is no longer available
a public information web page from the Health Physics Society

I'm quite confident that I've done my research, and that I gave sufficient citations for my changes. And by the way, I am an expert in this field.--Yannick (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rad (unit). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q3142.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Source Link

Hello,

Random user here: I noticed the first source contains a broken link. For clarity, the source is as follows:

International Bureau of Weights and Measures (2008). United States National Institute of Standards and Technology (ed.). The International System of Units (SI) (PDF). NIST Special Publication 330. Dept. of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved September 1, 2018.

I just wanted to make a note for somebody as I am not confident in making a change myself. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.105.3.202 (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]