RE: A question of semantics or not?

["Frank Scarano II" <frank.scarano@nist.gov>]

: ra·di·a·tion

: the action or process of radiating b : the process of emitting radiant

energy in the form of waves or particles c (1) : the combined processes

of emission, transmission, and absorption of radiant energy (2) : the

transfer of heat by radiation -- compare CONDUCTION,









Thanks

===============================

Frank C. Scarano II, Health Physics Technician 

Nist Center for Neutron Research

100 Bureau Drive, stop 3543  

Building 235 Room A 132 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3543 

Phone:301-975- 5811

=====================================

"The atom bomb was no 'great decision.' 

It was merely another powerful weapon 

in the arsenal of righteousness." 

President Harry Truman 



-----Original Message-----

From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of Matthew Rumick

Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 3:10 PM

To: LNMolino@aol.com; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: A question of semantics or not?



Louis,



I would agree with Mr. Barnes.  The term "radiation" refers to the

energy 

emitted from the radioactive material which is being dispersed.  The

term 

"radiological" refers to the actual radioactive material that would be 

dispersed by the RDD.



Matthew Rumick

University of Chicago



>From: "James Barnes" <james.g.barnes@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>

>Reply-To: "James Barnes" <james.g.barnes@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>

>To: <LNMolino@AOL.COM>, <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

>Subject: Re: A question of semantics or not?

>Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:29:50 -0700

>

>Dear Louis,

>

>The common "proper" terminology I have seen is "Radiological"

Dispersion 

>Device.

>

>"Radiation" dispersion device gets the concept across, but you are 

>dispersing radioactive materials which (theoretically) would increase

the 

>radiation levels over a wide area.  Thus, "radiation" dispersion device

is 

>a bit of a misnomer.  You are dispersing the radioactivity which then 

>increases the radiation.

>

>Splitting hairs?  Yes, probably.  Depending on the audience, I'd use

the 

>term that I felt would be most effective at getting the concept across.

To 

>a group of professional HPs I'd use radiological.  To a "hands on"

group 

>that aren't radiation specialists, "radiation" would probably do

nicely.

>

>Jim Barnes, CHP

>james.g.barnes@att.net

>

>

>

>   ----- Original Message -----

>   From: LNMolino@AOL.COM

>   To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

>   Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 9:18 PM

>   Subject: A question of semantics or not?

>

>

>   hello RADSAFERs,

>

>   I'm a lurker here who has a very limited background in radiation 

>training per say yet a need to have a good working understanding of

same 

>but not to the Nth level as some of y'all get to. I have a question of

what 

>some in my world (fire, police EMS and emergency management) consider

to be 

>an issue of semantics I however a not sure if it is or if it is more 

>important then we think?

>

>   We spend a great deal of time talking about the threat of a

terrorist 

>using a radiological material (RAM) as a "filler" for an improvised 

>explosive device (IED) this creating what is commonly called an RDD.

>

>   Note I did not define RDD because this is the crux of my question.

Is 

>the R in RDD RADIOLOGICAL or is it RADIATION? Assuming that the RAM is 

>placed in an IED (the common theory for the creation of an RDD) which

term 

>would those of you that are "into" the R side of the house prefer to

see 

>used and or more appropriately does it matter to you which term is used



>hence is it just semantics?

>

>   Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

>   FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

>   LNMolino@aol.com

>   979-690-3607 (Home Office)

>   979-458-0795 (Fire Field Office)

>

>   "A Texan with a Jersey Attitude"

>

>   The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author

and 

>the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or 

>organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated

with 

>unless I specifically state that I am doing so.

>

>   Further this E-mail is intended only for it's stated recipient(s)

and 

>may contain private and or confidential materials. Retransmission,

storage, 

>or retrieval of any type is strictly prohibited unless placed in the

public 

>domain by the original author.



_________________________________________________________________

Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text

"unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject

line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/