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

Pharmacology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

You do not discuss/mention the EFFICIENCY of the detector, which relates cpm to dpm. Please update.19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[email protected]69.208.241.156 (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the section Counts_per_minute#Count_rates_versus_disintegration_rates there is a short discussion on (and link to) counting efficiency, as of February 2015, thanks to User:Dougsim. —Hulten (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kilometres per hour which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to disambiguate the title (that contains a compound noun): this relates only to the name of the article (so a discussion on the potential move of the article, not the discussion itself). —Hulten (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section Counts_per_minute#Count_rates_versus_disintegration_rates compares Bq with cpm. While the mention of Bq is imperative, the comparison should be between dpm and cpm. I could change this and clarify that paragraph, if I understand it correctly: Bq and dpm are decays per unit of time (difference is a factor of 60 seconds per minute), while cpm tends to measure dpm, but depends on the counting efficiency. Correct? —Hulten (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there could be improved clarity there. Bq would best be compared with disintegrations per second and cps. Just have to make sure difference between events at the source and events at the detector are still clearly differentiated. Dougsim (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made minor changes. I reduced the switching between disintegrations and counts in the concerning paragraph, which should make it read more easily.

—Hulten (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]