Talk:Roentgen equivalent man

Few things
Cheers philb 11:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Should röntgen (line one) be capitalised
 * And can we start a page for millirem and link it to röntgen equivalent man, so that we can redirect mrem and milirem there without a double redirect? would that be a good idea??
 * No, it should not be capitalized, since the convention is that all units of measurement when spelled in full are not capitalized. Hence we spell "ampere". When spelled in short form those units derived from names of scientists are capitalized, but the rest are not. Hence we spell A as short for ampere but m as short for metre.
 * However this logic means that rem should be spelled Rem, however for some reason it is not.Rozmysl (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think calling the Rem deprecated is a little snarky. It's a little like calling the mile or the inch deprecated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.149.12 (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, this statement is just pure wrong. In many countries like in Canada there is no other unit used at all throughout the nuclear industry, and I am pretty sure the same is true for US. All gamma-measuring instruments are reading in rem/h, all doses to personnel are assigned in rems, all procedures and instrutions use rem, etc. And mind you, there is no sign this will change any time soon. It must be "deprecated" in scientific circles, however in the industry it is the only one used.Rozmysl (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * uhm, the last paragraph talking about radiation poisoning should really be elaborated upon--one should note that some people around the world receive ten or more times this dosage over the period of a year (because they live at high altitudes, for example), and that there is no clear-cut evidence of adverse health effects from radiation at levels below 100,000 millirem a year.

also, the sources date back to 1962--can we update these? Afterwards (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All these data are based on extrapolating effects of acute doses on long-term small doses of radiation.
 * It is like saying, "A blow on the head with a club can kill you. Hence, if you are slightly tapped on the head one million times, you are going to die." However with respect to radiation, this is the commonly accepted point of view.
 * There are articles which claim to prove beneficial effects of small doses of radiation (lower cancer risk). One was a research on effects of radiation on dwellers of buildings in Taipei built from slighlty radioactive concrete, I think in one of the Surgeon's Journals.Rozmysl (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Blood changes
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? &mdash;Onore Baka Sama(speak 13:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong article. Such elaboration belongs in radiation poisoning or other linked articles.  Jim.henderson (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Bogus claim and wrong reference
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)

Concurrence
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)

Definition paragraph
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)

Units of rem vs. sievert
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)
 * The sievert is defined at Sievert. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Sentence removal
"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)