, « C5 . eye oo. Yhe question is: spotele problem. potential for cancer ? ~ . devs sucha particles have an saboancel One can ar gue that cancer cannot: No one knows. evoive from dead cells, «ES re hence a depleted cell populatica niet be lees Ye oF ee my oft, carcinogenic. phe facts are, though, thal intense , local doses of radiation are extremely . ‘. This is believeable, and must be true on occasion. 7 . ° . ay ‘ ° . . .. . The ~ effective carcinogens, much more so than if the energy were averaged over a larger tissue masg (Geesaman, D.P., 1988b). - Furthermore, this can take place at high d « osesof radiation where only one cell in ten thousand has retained its capacity to divide. sue to radiation has The cancer susceptibility of lung tis- been dernonstrated in many species; one can Say in general that the lung is more susceptible to inhomogeneous exposures from poe cticles anc iraplants than it is to diffuge uniform radiation. - Some very eareful skin experiments of Dr. Albert ‘he.ve indicated that tissue disrup- tion is a very likely pathway: of radioacttive induction of cancer after intense exposure (Albert, R.E., etal., 196%a, 19675, 198%e, 1969). The experi meats show that the mosst severe tissueinjury is not necess sary , nor even Oplimal, for the induction of cancer. When these notions are applied to a ~ hol particle in the luag, the possibility of one cancer from 10, 000 discuptive particle < is realistic. nis is disturbing because a n appreciable portion of the total radioactivity in a plutoniumaercsol is usually in the large particle component. . Let roe deraenstrate what Trocan. Stpnose « man received a * hastinuas permissible dang burden for plutonium, and suppose roughty ot e . . . , Poot the ons of Che barden was associated with the mort ac tive lass