Re[2]: how many sensitive cells?

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Ted,

I agree with you, as it applies to the premise of biological effects of
radiation, by ICRP. My point is that this is simplistic and convenient but is
in substantial error when considered from the biology, microdosimetry,
biological effects perspective. 

> >Not correct. "D" in any form is energy _concentration_ (energy per unit mass).
> >E & E just play around with it. It doesn't provide energy absorbed (energy
> >per unit mass times mass of the biological unit of interest - cell,
> >organism, or population).
> 
> Jim,
> 
> I think you mis understand my point - or I mis made it.
> 
> I agree Rad dose units are concentration (energy per unit mass) and it is
> ASSUMED to be uniform whole body - THUS under such assumption the
> concentration need not be multiplied by the total mass for total energy
> deposited.  I don't believe I suggested it did to begin with.

I understand. You didn't. That's the point presented by Vic Bond, Ludwig
Feinendegen, and others. The ICRP premise that you needn't doesn't hold up
under detailed biological assessment. 

> BUT my comment was meant to address the issue in the other direction.
> 
> I believe the original question asked why BOTH to total mass and total
> energy weren't considered.  I suggest that when the exposure is NOT
> uniform either through attenuation or localization and then the
> EDE calculations are done, they effectively average the dose
> (concentration) over the whole body mass.  This is how one gets micro R of
> dose from 100's of mR of exposure in dental x-ray for instance.

And it is flawed. The assessment of "dose" should only apply to the cells
exposed, as imparted energy, not energy concentration. 

> THIS process mathmatically DOES consider the total energy and total mass
> and when used by LNT believers is equated to risk.  Same for population
> dose.

Right. That's the assumption. But it isn't valid. 

> Since the basic dose unit is a concentration unit and the risk estimates
> are based on this concentration unit - calculation of total energy is
> meaningless.

Again this is correct, but only by the erroneous application by ICRP that
ignores the biological conditions and basis for assessing biological risk.
This is biological analysis by phyicists. It is time to consider the
biologists. 

> Ted de Castro

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc.