searching high & low

[William McCabe <WMCCABE@tnrcc.state.tx.us>]

Thanks everybody for your prompt answers.  Judging by the
responses I think I asked my original question (below) wrong.
 What I'm trying to find out is not the definitions of the terms
but why were the words "high" and "low" used to label these
types of radioactive waste?  This may be more of a question
for the historians out there.  Any citations or references
would be appreciated.  

Thanks.

William J. McCabe, Health Physicist
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
MC-131
Austin, Texas  78711-3087
wmccabe@tnrcc.state.tx.us
(512) 239-2252     fax: (512)239-6362

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2/25/97>>>>>>>

I am constantly hearing the argument that the government
and the nuclear industry are trying to deceive the public
through the use of the term low-level radioactive waste.  The
argument starts off by implying that the term low-level
radioactive waste is supposed to mean that there are low
levels of radiation/radioactivity associated with it and then
goes on to demonstrate that some low-level radioactive
waste actually has very high levels of radiation/radioactivity in
it.

I think that the premise of the argument is false, so my
question is this:  What are the origins of the terms low-level
and high-level with regard to radioactive waste.  

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>