PNNL

Abstract

While much of the language used to express the concepts of radiation protection works effectively, there is much jargon and many ill-chosen names and phrases that permeate our professional speech and writing. From the oxymoron ?internal exposure? to the ?snarl word? ?decay,? there is much room for improvement. This essay identifies many of the problems and suggests solutions. We examine the kinds of confusions that can result from using familiar words with unfamiliar meanings, and the need for neology. We offer insights into specific and unambiguous naming of physical quantities and explore the seemingly unlimited kinds of ?dose.? We disaggregate exposure from irradiation following intakes, and unmask units like ?gram rad per microcurie hour.? We call for a definition of radiation weighting factor that doesn?t result in a violation the law of conservation of energy. We examine the subtleties of distinguishing between radiation and radioactive materials. Some words, such as ?exposure,? have multiple meanings, while at other times there are different words or phrases with the same meaning, such as ?critical level? and ?decision level? or ?detection level? and ?minimum detectable amount.? Sometimes phrases are used whose meaning is unclear or not agreed upon, such as ?lower limit of detection.? Sometimes there are words that are simply not apt, such as ?disintegration? applied to the emission of a subatomic particle from a nucleus.