Re: Nd-144

[LIPTONW@dteenergy.com]

The primary rationale would be the low specific activity; I calculate 
approximately 
1 E-6 uCi/g.  This would not be radioactive for transportation purposes. 
The 
metal and several compounds are listed as potentially hazardous, so I would 
guess that in virtually all circumstances, the chemical hazard is greater
than 
any radiological hazard.  I know that for U-238, which has a specific
activity 
of 3.4 E-1 uCi/g, the chemical hazard is considered greater than the 
radiological hazard. 
 
The opinions expressed are strictly mine. 
It's not about dose, it's about trust. 
 
Bill Lipton 
liptonw@dteenergy.com 
 
You wrote: 
 
>Is there any rational for exempting Neodymium-144 (half-life 2.4E15 yr) 
>from rad safety concern? 
 
 

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html