Talk:Sievert
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 18:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have removed the list of alleged effects of different levels of sieverts, as they are not appropriate in this article. The unit "Sievert" can be applied to either equivalent dose or effective dose. Such effects as "nausea" and "death" are not appropriate if quoted in terms of the effective dose, since effective dose refers to stochastic effects only. These figures may be true in terms of equivalent dose, but you would have to say which part of the body has been irradiated.
If you want to put this back in, I would suggest at equivalent dose or effects of radiation or something.
--Sievert 11:41, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Equvalent dose vs. dose equivalent
The article at Equivalent dose states "The equivalent dose should not be mistaken for dose equivalent." Yet the Sievert article uses these terms interchangably in the same sentence. Someone who really understands the specifics should do some careful editing. Jedwards05 05:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Inconsistency
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)
[edit] Quality factor
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 [1]; 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)
[edit] N values for other species
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)
