Semantics and Radioactivity

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@prodigy.net>]

There seems to be a lot of "misunderstanding" on what is meant by the term

"highly radioactive". In 1980, we presented a paper at the HPS Conf. titled

"The Hazard of Long-Lived Radionuclides" in which it was observed that:

• There is an inordinate degree of concern directed toward long-lived radionuclides (e.g. U-238, I-129, etc.), because of their long half-lives.
• If this concern is warranted, the so-called stable nuclides should cause the highest concern, given that they will exist forever
• There is an inverse relationship between half-life and specific activity. The longer its half-life, the less radioactive the nuclide is., and

• Given that the proton itself decays with an estimated half-life of 10³¹ years, all matter might be considered radioactive to some degree.

To rectify any problems stemming from all this, we recommend a revised categorization as follows:

 

Nuclide Definition                                   Half-Life

Radioactive                                  <1.0 million years

Radiopassive                               >1.0 million years

                                                       < 1.0 trillion years

          Radioquiescent                            > 1.0 trillion years

Maybe I am prejudiced, but I think such categorization would be a good idea. For example, if U-238 were called "radioquiescent"' there might be less tendency to concentrate on its radiation properties and  focus concern toward its heavy metal toxicity, where it belongs.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, others did not share my views. The paper was rejected for publication as being too "off the wall". Maybe I was born too soon.