Thank You Nick for Your reply: So my guess that radioactivity of...

Thank You Nick for Your reply: So my guess that radioactivity of LAMP's residue might be 50 times more (at maximum) than that of fly ash is about right.
Anyway I don't assume that they use coal from Croatia in Malaysia.
For Netherlands an annual personal dosis of 2 to 2.5 mSv is normal/natural and has to be accepted and if a worker would handle LAMP's residue in close contact on a daily basis it would add 1 mSv/a. If we consider the worlwide use of fly ash in concrete and of phosphogypsum in plasterboard in constructions for housing we see that LAMP's residue still can be considered not harmful, because nobody is working within the dumped material before it is processed to useful materials for civil engineering. As mentioned in a former post of mine, if used in the production of cement to regulate setting about 5% gypsum will be added on top of the clinker when ground , which would dilute the dosis to 0,05 mSv/a. There are many sources of natural and manmade radioactivity which we have to look at more seriously, like incorporating the alpha-emmitter Plutonium 210 with the smoke of cigarettes (even passively!)which is the reason for cancer of the lounge much more than tar an nicotin.
In my humble opinion the production residue of LAMP should not be designated as radioactive waste anymore.

Coal and any organic material in contact with formation waters are geochemical traps for hexavalent Uranium because of chemical change in its oxidation state. Therefore the residue of coal fired power plants fly ash is enriched in Uranium instead it is not considered harmful to men. Thats the way we should consider any construction material made of the residue of the LAMP process.