Re: searching high & low

["J. J. Rozental" <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>]

At 08:51 AM 2/27/97 -0600, you wrote:
>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>>>>>>>
 What are the origins of the terms low-level
and high-level with regard to radioactive waste.  
==========================================
Starting from 1950 up today the word high level or low level has one of the
following meaning, accordingly:

high beta/gamma (energy)
high radiotoxicity
high heat output (high activity)

And,  consequently, the word low level mean:

low beta/gamma (energy)
low radiotoxicity
low heat output (low activity)

In such extent, it was necessary to include another term, that you didn't
mention: intermediate level, and:

intermediate beta/gamma (energy)
intermediate radiotoxicity
intermediate heat output (activity)

Considering the above statement and the following parameters long
lived/short lived, significant alpha/insignificant alpha, chemical/physical
characteristics, national and  international organizations made the
propositions for solid, liquid, gaseous,  waste categories and regulations.
Until now, as you know, both,  high level  and low level  are a problem of
major concern,  as we can learn from the Sandy news.

J. J. Rozental, Consultant
Radiation Safety & Regulation
for developing country
Israel