This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Radiology / Toxicology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Radiology task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

See Talk:Equivalent dose#Merger proposal. bd2412 T 09:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

It has been found that for stochastic radiation risk (defined as probability of cancer induction and genetic effects) consideration must be given to the type of radiation and the sensitivity of the irradiated tissues, which requires the use of modifying factors. Conventionally therefore, unmodified absorbed dose is not used for comparing stochastic risks but only used to compare against deterministic effects (severity of acute tissue effects that are certain to happen) such as in acute radiation syndrome.

I don't like the way this is rationalized: stochastic versus deterministic. It sounds like a sloppy summary, i.e. wrong categories, i.e. essentially mistaken. The real distinction is probably genetic damage versus "acute tissue effects such as acute radiation syndrome", or long-term vs acute. So let's see a citation. 178.39.122.125 ( talk) 19:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply