[ RadSafe ] LNT

[Otto G. Raabe]

At 01:19 AM 9/30/2011, Busby, Chris wrote:
>I know that all studies are based on this quantity. But this 
>quantity is not the same as the ionisation density at the DNA. Any 
>schoolkid could work that out with a pencil. Thats why you multiply 
>by 20 for alphas. Why do you think you multiply by 20 for alphas. It 
>used to be callesd relative biologcal effectiveness RBE.  Are you 
>saying that a decay in the cytoplasm has the same carcinogenic 
>effect as a decay in the coiled DNA of an element chemically bound 
>to it? It seems you are. Take tyritium. The beta range is so small 
>that ALL the decays in the cytoplasm are lost energy. So the effects 
>must be due to those few atoms that approach rthe DNA or some other 
>key target. Yet Tritium has a RBE of 1.0. Therefore the few atoms 
>that are near the DNA must have a RBE of several thousand to account 
>for the lost energy ionsining the cytoplasm.  ICRP originally 
>decided as far back as 1972 to add a weighting factor N to internal e
>  mitters that bound to DNA. I was told this by one of the ICRP 
> people in Stockholm last year. They dropped the idea. But ECRR 
> picked it up (independently, since we didnt know in 2003 that ICRP 
> had done this
*******************************
MORE NONSENSE!

ACTUAL DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIPS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN IMAGINARY ONES.


**********************************************
Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
Center for Health & the Environment
University of California
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu
Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140
***********************************************