[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Semantics and Radioactivity
Sorry about the cyberglitch on my recent note. The estimated half-life
of the proton is not 1031 years. That should read 10 E31, or
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. I don't see
how we can dispose of anything containing protons, because social
institutions are simply not capable of managing it for such a long
time :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@prodigy.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 1:05 PM
Subject: Semantics and Radioactivity
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C08600.9658D520
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="koi8-r"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>There seems to be a lot of "misunderstanding" on what is meant by the =
>term=20
>
>"highly radioactive". In 1980, we presented a paper at the HPS Conf. =
>titled=20
>
>"The Hazard of Long-Lived Radionuclides" in which it was observed that:
>
> a.. 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.
> b.. If this concern is warranted, the so-called stable nuclides =
>should cause the highest concern, given that they will exist forever
> c.. There is an inverse relationship between half-life and specific =
>activity. The longer its half-life, the less radioactive the nuclide =
>is., and
> a.. 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=20
>
>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.=20
>
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C08600.9658D520
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="koi8-r"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
><HTML>
><HEAD>
>
><META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Dkoi8-r =
>http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 =
>HTML//EN">
><META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
></HEAD>
><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial>
><P>There seems to be a lot of "misunderstanding" on what is =
>meant by=20
>the term </P>
><P>"highly radioactive". In 1980, we presented a paper at the =
>HPS=20
>Conf. titled </P>
><P>"The Hazard of Long-Lived Radionuclides" in which it was =
>observed=20
>that:</P>
><UL>
> <LI>There is an inordinate degree of concern directed toward =
>long-lived=20
> radionuclides (e.g. U-238, I-129, etc.), because of their long=20
> half-lives.</LI>
> <LI>If this concern is warranted, the so-called stable nuclides =
>should cause=20
> the highest concern, given that they will exist forever</LI>
> <LI>There is an inverse relationship between half-life and specific=20
> activity. The longer its half-life, the less radioactive the nuclide =
>is.,=20
> and</LI></UL>
><UL>
> <LI>Given that the proton itself decays with an estimated half-life =
>of=20
> 10<SUP>31 </SUP>years, all matter might be considered radioactive to =
>some=20
> degree.</LI></UL>
><DIR>
><P>To rectify any problems stemming from all this, we recommend a =
>revised=20
>categorization as follows:</P></DIR><U>
><P> </P></U>
><DIR>
><P><STRONG><U>Nuclide=20
></U><U>Definition</U> &nbs=
>p;  =
>; =
> =20
></STRONG><STRONG><U>Half-Life</U></STRONG> </P>
><P>Radioactive  =
>; =
> =20
><1.0 million years</P>
><P>Radiopassive &nbs=
>p;  =
>; =20
>>1.0 million years</P>
><P> &nbs=
>p;  =
>; =
> &=
>nbsp; =20
>< 1.0 trillion years</P></DIR>
><P> =20
>Radioquiescent  =
>; =
> =20
>> 1.0 trillion years </P>
><P>Maybe I am prejudiced, but I think such categorization would be a =
>good idea.=20
>For example, if U-238 were called "radioquiescent"' there =
>might be=20
>less tendency to concentrate on its radiation properties and focus =
>concern=20
>toward its heavy metal toxicity, where it belongs.</P>
><P>Unfortunately, as is often the case, others did not share my views. =
>The paper=20
>was rejected for publication as being too "off the wall". =
>Maybe I was=20
>born too soon. </P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C08600.9658D520--
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html