A-kol.
.
( ot
,
a
‘
(8
ya
understand, and there will continue to be uncertainties until weallh physics
can provide a coherent theory of radiation demare.
This is why some of
D.P. Geesaman
pore
the basic vesesarch studies of the USAC ars so important.
and Taraplin have pointed out recently the prevlems
of plutonium-2°9 gave
+
ticles and the uncertainty of the risk to a man who carrics suteh a par ticle
.
af highs
-
*
.
.
cific activity in his lungs.”
.
"
.
.
:
7%
At the same hearing, "in response
QO
a)
to the committee's inquiry about priorities in basic research on the bioloan
ye
-
sical effects of radiation, Dr.
KM. Eisenbud,
then Dire ctor of the New York:
.
a
:
:
oe,
.
.
.
City Environmental Protection Administration, in part replied,
Ilecs
'For some
reason or other the particle problera has not come upon us in quite a little
while, but it probably will one of these days.
We are not much further
-
Vesey
Ye baer eet
vong en tho
busiz
nebo
et lepes
"Af A.
Pitt...
gucctia
cfPo
wheuie. ttya given
aniount
oo cnergy
8 delivers i
"g a progressively smaller and srnaller volume of tissue is better or worse
for the recipient.
This is ancther way of asking the question of how you
calculate tne dose when you inhale a single particle."
ile was5 correct:
(Bisenb
bud,M, ; 1970).
the problem has come_up again
o
t
In the context
of his comment it is; inter esting to refer to the
F
~
Wational Academy of Sciences, Ntational Research Council report of 1961
on the Effects of Inhaled Radioactive Particle s (U.S. NAS.NRC.1961).
'
-
-
Lhe first sentence reads,
te
.
.
.
*
,
The potential hazard due to airborne radioactive
particulatesis probably the least understood of the hazards asssociated |
Wilhbatomic weapons tosis, production of cacioslements, and the expandiag
.
.
Wie Of mucloar
energy Cor power productian.
spaces
mem ro eG db valid.
if
.
4) decade later tinub state
iingily lebime quote Dre. Sanders, Phompacen, and