Advertisement

The Agent Carrier and Transfer Approach to Radiobiological Responses

  • Victor P. Bond
  • Matesh N. Varma
Part of the Basic Life Sciences book series

Abstract

A conceptually close analogue for evaluating different approaches to the assessment of the average risk to cells exposed to “low-level radiation” can be found in physics. Here a physical target(s) of atomic or nuclear dimensions is exposed in a specified field of incident particles, and the probability of a particle-target encounter, and thus the risk of target transformation, is determined by observing the number of encounters that occur during a given exposure time tE. This approach is described by the simple equation,
$${{\text{N}}_{\text{H}}} = {{\text{N}}_{\text{E}}}\;\phi \;\mathop \sigma \limits^ - ,\;{\text{or}}$$
(1)
$${{\text{I}}_{\text{H}}} = \phi \mathop {\sigma ,}\limits^ -$$
(2)

Keywords

Relative Biological Effectiveness Agent Delivery Risk Coefficient Quantal Response Agent Source 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bond, V. P., 1979, Quantitative risk in radiation protection standards, Radiat. Environ. Biophys., 17:1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bond, V. P., 1982, The conceptual basis for evaluating risk from low-level radiation exposure, in: “Critical Issues in Setting Radiation Dose Limits,” No. 3, pp. 25–65, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
  3. Bond, V. P., 1984, A stochastic basis for curve shape, RBE and temporal dependence, in: “Radiation Carcinogenesis, Epidemiology and Biological Significance,” Vol. 26, pp. 378–402, J. D. Boice, Jr. and J. F. Fraumeni, Jr., eds. Raven Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Bond, V. P., and Thiessen, J. W., eds., 1981, “Reevaluations of Dosimetric Factors, Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” Technical report CONF-810928 (DE 81026279). National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.Google Scholar
  5. Bond, V. P., and Varma, M. N., 1983, A stochastic, weighted hit size theory of cellular radiobiological action, in: “Radiation Protection,” pp. 423–438, J. Booz and H. G. Ebert, eds., Coram. of European Communities, 8395, Luxemburg.Google Scholar
  6. Finney, D. J., 1964, “Probit Analysis,” 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  7. ICRU Report 33, 1980, “Radiation Quantities and Units,” International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
  8. Kellerer, A. M., 1976, Microdosimetry and its implication for the primary processes in radiation carcinogenesis, in: “Biology of Radiation Carcinogenesis,” pp. 1–12, J. M. Yuhas, R. W. Tennant and J. D. Regan, eds., Raven Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1980, “Influence of Dose and its Distribution in Time on Dose-Response Relationships for Low-LET Radiation,” NCRP Report No. 64, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  10. Nauman, C. H., Underbrink, A. G., and Sparrow, A. H., 1975, Influence of radiation dose rate on somatic mutation induction in Tradescantia stamen hairs, Radiat. Res. 62:79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Orville, R. E., Henderson, R. W., and Bosart, L. F., 1983, An east coast lightning detection network, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 64:1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Richmond, D. R., Bowen, I. G., and White, G. S., 1961, Effects of impact on mice, rats, guinea pigs and rabbits, Aerosp. Med., 32:789.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Rossi, H. H., 1968, Microscopic energy distribution in irradiated matter, in: “Radiation Dosimetry,” pp. 43–92, F. H. Attix and W. C. Roesch, eds., Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Rossi, H. H., 1979, The role of microdosimetry in radiobiology, Radiat. Environ. Biophys., 17:29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sparrow, A. H., Underbrink, A. G., and Rossi, H. H., 1972, Mutations induced in Tradescantia by small doses of x rays and neutrons: analysis of dose-response curves, Science, 176:916.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Turner, J., and Hollister, H., 1965, Relationship of the velocity of a charged particle to its relative biological effectiveness, Nature (London), 207:36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Underbrink, A. G., and Sparrow, A. H., 1974, The influence of experimental end points, dose, dose rate, neutron energy, nitrogen ions, hypoxia, chromosome volume and ploidy level on RBE in Tradescantia stamen hairs and pollen, in: “Biological Effects of Neutron Irradiation,” pp. 185–214, IAEA-SM-179/31, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.Google Scholar
  18. Underbrink, A. G., Kellerer, A. M., Mills, R. E., and Sparrow, A. H., 1976, Comparison of x-ray and gamma ray dose-response curves for pink somatic mutations in Tradescantia clone 02, Radiat. Environ. Biophys., 13:295.Google Scholar
  19. Varma, M. N., and Bond, V. P., 1983, Empirical evaluation of cell critical volume dose vs. cell response function for pink mutations in Tradescantia, in: “Radiation Protection,” pp. 439–450, J. Booz and H. G. Ebert, eds., Comm. of European Communities, 8395, Luxemborg.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor P. Bond
    • 1
  • Matesh N. Varma
    • 1
  1. 1.Brookhaven National LaboratoryUptonUSA

Personalised recommendations