Re: High natural background radiation areas

["dkosloff1" <dkosloff1@email.msn.com>]

Sorry, I was not clear.   I did not characterize anything as "highly
radioactive".  The otherwise enlightening galleries website, which I was
most happy to learn of, stated that a physical characteristic of monazite
was that it was "generally highly radioactive."   Monazite was portrayed as
being "generally highly radioactive" due to the presence of thorium.
However, even as a refined metal, thorium would not compare to metals which
I would consider "highly radioactive".  Therefore, I believe that portraying
monazite as "generally highly radioactive" in error because the
concentration of thorium in monazite would be lower than it would be in
refined thorium metal.  Although monazite can cause high background
radiation, I do not believe that monazite is "highly radioactive" by any
reasonable definition.   However, there does not appear to be any accepted
definition of "highly radioactive."  Therefore, it is more difficult to
point out to the press, or others, that they are using the phrase "highly
radioactive" in a misleading way.

Don Kosloff  dkosloff1@msn.com
 2910 Main St., Perry OH 44081


----- Original Message -----
From: "J. J. Rozental" <joseroze@netvision.net.il>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: High natural background radiation areas


> The subject is not about "highly radioactive metal", however rather High
> natural background radiation areas, two different things. If you look at
any
> nuclear search you will find this expression.
>
> Jose Julio Rozental
> joseroze@netvision.net.il
> Israel

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: dkosloff1 <dkosloff1@email.msn.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 6:12 PM
> Subject: Re: High natural background radiation areas
>
> The phrase "highly radioactive" seems to be popular in the press.  I do
not
> recall ever seeing the same phrase used by professionals who study
> radioactivity.  Classifying thorium metal as being highly radioactive
> strikes me as incorrect.  When I hear about a "highly radioactive metal",
I
> immediately think of Cobalt-60 or Cesium-137.  If something can be "highly
> radioactive" then that implies that other things may be "mildly
> radioactive,"  "weakly radioactive" or just "radioactive".


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html