Replies

Semantics, or misunderstanding in unit labels

R = rem not rad.

R = roentgen equivalent man (or rem), not rad, defined as 1 rad = 0.01 Gy (gray)
[which at the conversion, 1 roentgen deposits 0.877 rad in dry air, 0.96 rad in soft tissue, or anywhere from 1 to more than 4 rad in bone depending on the beam energy. Could be considered materially the same or vastly different depending on either context, the expert or both]

5R = 5,000 mR.

5 R = 5 roentgen or 5000 mR.

Named for/after Wilhelm Röntgen. (An under appreciated/ known powerhouse with the likes of other early pioneer heroes. I digress, though it is a subject near to mt geek heart. A book could/ should be written with a chapter on each of these almost unknown Paladins.)

Wiki: “There is no universally applicable conversion constant from rad to rem; the conversion depends on relative biological effectiveness (RBE).”

I agree with the above paragraph,
The measurements are used by industrial workers recording their allowable exposures, cumulative for the year, not to exceed 5R. Rads are exposures physicists and MDs (used to) to study the damage caused by those exposures, though if a person is looking at historical studies they are labelled R, and referencing rads, which adds to the menacing extra step converted numbers that are either really close or vastly different values depending on the volume/amount and the difference between exposure vs. damage.

Six one way and half a dozen the other.

This statement is either seen as materially different but substantially the same, a discussion on semantics or a discussion of items that use the same arabic numerals discussing different however similar.

Sometimes the differences are subtle or massive.

Perhaps this helps clear the conversation, or makes it more muddled. Not certain how the information will be recieved.

The difficulties of discussions in print vs. spoken conversations.

I hope this time I have been more clear.

I do not consider either sites to be “Hell holes on earth”. There are many sites and sights in various locations above and below the surface of this earth that are dangerous to humans, and yet are fascinating. Vents, plumes, volcanoes, etc. Energy and its display is admired by many by its volume and/or unique features/properties.

Based upon my interests in both sites, I do desire that eventually they could retrieve images of the “den of the dragon” , the innermost areas of Fukushima, just as they were able to retrieve of Chernobyl.

OOI