Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement
the article states "converts between the amount of ionization in air (roentgens) and the absorbed dose in tissue (rads)". But rad is not a measure unit for absorbed dose in tissue, but on matter. Probably the sentence should be reformated as:
"converts between the amount of ionization in air (roentgens) and the absorbed dose in matter (rads)".
When speaking of tissues, need include the equivalent dose (Radiation weighting factors WR) for tissue, like in Sievert and rem do, and never use rad (and Gray) to avoide confusion.--Efa (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
As you say, rad is unit for measuring absorbed dose in matter, and tissue is matter. Rem is the unit for measuring Effective dose in tissues; it is equal to the dose measured in rads multiplied by the Relative biological effectiveness of the radiation. So going from roentgens to rems is a 2-step process. First convert to rads, then convert rads to rems. Rwflammang (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
