History
The concept of the rem first appeared in the literature in 1945, and was given its first definition in 1947. The definition was refined in 1950 as "that dose of any ionizing radiation which produces a relevant biological effect equal to that produced by one roentgen of high-voltage x-radiation." This definition left open the question of what might be considered a "relevant biological effect," and did not prescribe if the roentgen should be measured in air, water, or tissue. Using data available at the time, the rem was variously evaluated as 83, 93, or 95 erg/gram. Along with the introduction of the rad in 1953, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) decided to "continue" the use of the rem. The US National Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurements noted in 1954 that this effectively implied an increase in the magnitude of the rem to match the rad (100 erg/gram). The ICRP officially adopted the rem as the unit of equivalent dose in 1962 to measure the way different types of radiation distribute energy in tissue, and began recommending values of relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for various types of radiation. In practice, the unit of rem was used to denote that an RBE factor had been applied to a number which was originally in units of rad or roentgen. In 1977 the rem was redefined by the ICRP as 0.01 sievert or 0.01 J/kg, with the intention that the sievert would come to replace the rem.
The International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) adopted the sievert in 1980, but never accepted the use of the rem. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recognizes that this unit is outside the SI, but temporarily accepts its use in the US with the SI. The rem remains in widespread use as an industry standard in the US. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission still permits the use of the units curie, rad and rem alongside SI units.
Read more about this topic: Roentgen Equivalent Man
Famous quotes containing the word history:
“The history of literature—take the net result of Tiraboshi, Warton, or Schlegel,—is a sum of a very few ideas, and of very few original tales,—all the rest being variation of these.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs?”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“We don’t know when our name came into being or how some distant ancestor acquired it. We don’t understand our name at all, we don’t know its history and yet we bear it with exalted fidelity, we merge with it, we like it, we are ridiculously proud of it as if we had thought it up ourselves in a moment of brilliant inspiration.”
—Milan Kundera (b. 1929)