[ RadSafe ] Q ?? Uranium (and Canada) A Discussion Guide -- Questions &Answers (1)

[howard long]

"Quality factor (Q): A factor which indicates the power of a ray or beam to produce a physiologic change. Q = 1 in low LET radiation. In high LET radiation, Q= 2-200 [ ! ! ! ]
  depending on the particle, its energy, and the biologic parameter studied. Depending upon the absorbtion of a ray, Gy x Q =Sv." Radiation Hormesis, TD Luckey [! by Long]
  
 
  So, is the Startrek "Q" at work here? 
  What dose of alpha from radon in the bronchial tubes is good and at what level does it become bad? 
   Is there original mouse or epidemiologic study to suggest that dose? 
  Where does the customary 20x factor come from for alpha effect?
   
  Howard Long
  
"Philippe J. Duport" <pduport at uottawa.ca> wrote:
  
Alpha radiation is the type of radiation for which there is the largest
number of peer-reviewed references that show unambiguous apparent or
real thresholds for the induction of cancer by alpha emitters. The list
of references is copious, both for animal experiments and human
populations.

When there is an apparent threshold, either the radiation weighting
factor, or the tissue weighting factor, or both are close or equal to
zero, in which case alpha radiation is certainly not 20 times more
dangerous than beta or gamma radiation. Perhaps, Gordon Edwards refers
to in vitro experiments, in which the "bullet" effect of alpha radiation
can be shown. However, in vitro experiments are not representative of
what happens in the whole organism, in which natural defense mechanisms
play their full role. Just one quotation, from someone who knows what
he is taking about: 

"Radiation weighting factors are considered to be independent on dose,
dose rate/fractionation, effect level, end point considered in a cell
(inactivation, mutation, ...), organ/tissue, gender and age. All these
assumption are likely to be wrong (example: Radon, where the "equivalent
dose concept" can be tested and proved inaccurate)" Prof. Dr. Dr.
Herwig G. Paretzke (RBE for different radiation particles and dose
levels. (International Radiation Protection Association, 11th
International Congress, Madrid, 2004)

Professor Paretzke is director of the Gsf- Institute of Radiation
Protection, Neuherberg, honorary professor at the Physics Department,
Technical University of Munich, and University Lecturer at the
Leopold-Franzens-University of Innsbruck, Austria. He is speaker of the
multi- national EU-project "Biophysical models for the induction of
cancer by radiation", member of the International Commission on
Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU), International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP), OECD- Committee on Radiation Protection
and Public Health (CRPPH), etc. 

Philippe Duport

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of Roger Helbig
Sent: February 19, 2007 23:33
To: radsafelist
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranium (and Canada) A Discussion Guide --
Questions &Answers (1)

This seems to be generally accurate, but I wonder if it all is and I
would appreciate your assistance in evaluating it.
http://www.ccnr.org/nfb_uranium_0.html

For example it states 

"Inside the body, however, alpha emitters are the most dangerous. They
are about 20 times more damaging than beta emitters or gamma emitters.
Thus, although alpha radiation cannot penetrate through a sheet of paper
or a dead layer of skin, alpha emitters are extremely hazardous when
taken into the body by inhalation or ingestion, or through a cut or open
sore."

I would really wonder whether it is more dangerous to take in an Alpha
emitter rather than one that emits Gamma radiation.

This same website also hosts Rosalie Bertell's paper connecting the Gulf
War Syndrome to depleted uranium and that appears to be highly suspect
so I wonder about the rest of the site.

Thank you.

Roger Helbig