Re: calculation of dose to biota

[xat@inel.gov (Alden Tschaeche)]

JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com wrote:
> 
> Al Tschaeche wrote in response to:
> 
> > >       however, these (RBEs)are currently defined only for the
> > >           purpose of human radiation protection.  Factors equivalent
> > >           to Q for aquatic organisms are required
> >
> > True, and this is the problem.  No one to my knowledge has developed
> > generally-accepted RBEs for alphas for anything but humans.
> 
> I think this implies that the RBEs are reasonably well established for humans,
> which is not really true. As John Cameron and others have reported, NCRP
> established that the quantity can't be determined (was it NCRP 104?) and then
> applied/used such a value (as WsubR) in #116 even though it can't be
> determined (consider the ranges of such changes reported, with the "central"
> values usually 3 to 20).
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> jmuckerheide@delphi.com

I think we're getting off the track a bit here.  RBEs were originally
developed for radiation protection standard-setting purposes for
humans.  They were never thought to be an accurate representation of the
real world, even for humans, never mind other animals and plants.  We
need to remember why various concepts and values were developed so we
won't try to apply them where they don't apply.  This thread about doses
to animals other than humans and to plants is interesting, but, to me is
a non-sequetor.  The philosophy always has been that, if we protect
humans, we will also protect the rest of the environment.  Does anyone
have any evidence that demonstrates this philosophy has not worked?  I
have heard that 10CFR834 will be published without the requirement to
determine doses to anything but humans.  So why are we wasting time on
this subject, interesting thought it is?  Enought ranting and raving for
a Monday morning.  Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov