[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re[2]: calculation of dose to biota
It depends on exactly what you are trying to do (or prove), and how you
qualify your statement of dose. My earlier response to you is still valid:
effective dose applies only to humans. Dose to biota is from my knowledge
and experience correctly and best expressed by the absorbed dose quantity.
The factor of 20 to which you allude is not an exact number, but rather a
value (approximate) designed for health physics (ie radiation protection)
purposes, and is defined as the radiation weighting factor (formerly known
as the quality factor). What is commonly used for radiobiology is the RBE.
The numerical value of the radiation weighting factor for alphas may or may
not be the same as the RBE for nonhuman biota. Given that you are at PNNL,
there are a number of your coworkers who are experts in dosimetry. You
might wish to discuss this dosimetry question with some of them,
specifically Bruce Napier and Darrell Fisher, to name two. Alternatively,
you may wiush to call me (375-5643) and perhaps I can offer some help to you
on a personal level.
Ron Kathren
Washington State University
> RADSAFERs:
> Let me pose the same question in a slightly different way:
>
> If the U.S. Department of Energy just so happened to pass a rule,
> let's say it would be called 10 CFR 834, and in that rule there
> was a section on dose rate limits for terrestrial and aquatic
> biota which were set at 1 rad per day, then would a person
> calculating internal alpha doses to these nonhuman biota increase
> that portion of the absorbed dose by a factor of 20 to account
> for the differences in cellular damage caused by the alphas
> relative to gamma photons or beta particles, like the IAEA
> suggested in Technical report series 332 and like the NCRP did in
> report 109?
> Thanks in advance for responding.
>
> Ernest Antonio
> Research Scientist
> Pacific Northwest National Lab
>
>