Talk:Orders of magnitude (radiation)

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

Physics List‑class Low‑importance

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 List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Table columns must have only numeric characters (0 to 9 and optional decimal point) for wikimedia's sort function to work. For any value that is a range in the cited source, it is best if the lower bound is in the sortable column and the full range in the description. -84user (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

 DoneFulfilling my own request. F (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the chart on copyvio concerns. Also, Randall Munroe is no expert on radiation, and he himself states on that very chart that it should not be used as reference. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 16:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just read he placed it on the public domain, so no copyvio concern. I however believe the chart should not be used as it is not a reliable source... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 16:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The chart at xkcd is too good to ignore. As for, "it is not a reliable source," he provides references; so it is at least as good as the rest of Wikipedia. If there were to be discrepancies, surely they would rapidly come to notice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davy p (talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it is best to cite those references and draw another chart...this is kind of a gray area on policy... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 19:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having some entries be "Acute", some "Hourly" and some "Annual" is confusing.

The layperson coming here to estimate some real risk (eg, should I fly on my next vacation...should I have a chest Xray...is a trip to Chernobyl wise?"), it would be easy to confuse these dosages.

Perhaps we should either:

1) Convert all annual doses to their hourly equivalent and place the annual equivalent into a separate column. This would place entries into a more reasonable order.

2) Make separate tables for acute, short-duration and long-duration dosage levels.

Thoughts?

SteveBaker (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]