[SPAM][ RadSafe ] RE: What Are Radionuclear Materials?
rstrickert at signaturescience.com
Mon Sep 21 11:00:27 CDT 2009
> So I think this position is a bit "we know best" rather than
> "let's try and be as clear as possible".
The "let's try and be as clear as possible" viewpoint appears to be the case from reading the Foreword and the Introduction in the linked IAEA Glossary, which include the purposes (pp. 3-4), the limited scope of the Glossary (pp. 4-5), and the statement (p.7):
"Some terms and usages that have been used in the past and/or are used in the publications of other organizations, but whose use is discouraged in IAEA publications, are included in the Safety Glossary. Such terms are listed in square brackets, and should be used only if they are essential to refer to other publications; alternative terms for use in IAEA publications are recommended."
The IAEA also encourages feedback on changes in terminology and usage for future Glossary revisions. The IAEA includes a link to a change form for submitting suggestions on the webpage, http://www-ns.iaea.org/standards/safety-glossary.htm
From: Doug Aitken [mailto:jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 10:22 AM
To: Strickert, Rick; 'Scott, Bobby'; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [SPAM][ RadSafe ] RE: What Are Radionuclear Materials?
I can understand the position. However, is not all material (unstable -
radioactive - or not, in reality "nuclear" (as in contains a nucleus...).
It only becomes radioactive if the nucleus is unstable...
So I think this position is a bit "we know best" rather than "let's try and
be as clear as possible".
Just because "nuclear" as an adjective (nuclear energy, etc) is clear, it
does not preclude (in my simple, non-professional mind) make it the only
And as for the statements " Radionuclear has also been used as a journalese
shorthand form for 'nuclear and/or radiological' - what is wrong with that
(other than the use of the semi-arrogant "journalese" - as in you dummies
have no right to mess with our lexicon...). And do they precisely define the
distinction between "nuclear" and radiological (or radioactive - as they use
the two terms in the same sentence...... )
Oh, well. I guess I am just having a bit of fun. We must remember that the
English language is a living thing and "usage" changes almost daily. If the
entire US establishment embraces the term "nucular", I don't feel too bad
about the use of radionuclear..
More information about the RadSafe