transfecrced quantal is large enough to have sone causing 3 response. Finally, it must be recognized density of energy be Gaingisle orubadility of that, with stochastic yvncuunters, tie transfer, a parameter of the most cCalevane quantity candicate quantittes in ters of Laclude aomeutun particularily of one part of unm ofgun ton pate censity, may well soft caustt, trauwati¢c Cranster, Ceiative rate of iajury. vtner ceceleration, to anuther part, and impulse. AEPFERELCES l. Parser, tie and Roesch, W.C. X Pavs and Gamma Rays. 2. Rossi, H.H. 322-531, 3. In Clark, G.L. (Ed.) The Zucyclopeaia of Chapman and Hall, Specification of london; radiation qualicy. Reinhold, kadlac. '¥, 1963. Res. 16, 1959. Rossi, H.H. Energy distribution in tne adsorption of radtation. Advances in Bivloegical and Medical Physics, Vol. II, edited by (), pp. 27-85, 1967. 4. Rossi, HH. Microdosimetry and radiodiology. Radiation and Proton Dosimetry 13-14, 259-265, 1985. 5. Lea, D.E. Press, 6. Actions of Padiation on Living Cells, Cambcidge Untversity London and NY, tond, V.P. The conceptual oasis radfation exposure. ra 1956. for evaluatiaog risk from low-level Critical Issues in Setting Raclation Protection Jose Limits. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1982. Bona, V.P. and Varma, M.N. Low-level radis:tion reponse explained in terms of fluence and cell critical volume douse. “Microdosimetry, Julich, pp. 423-439, 8. Varma, M.N. and Bond, V.P. Eignth Symposiun on 1933. Empirical evaluation of a cell critical volume dose vs. cell response function for pink mutations Tradescantia, 9. ina Eighth Symposium on Microdosimetry, pp. 4350-450, 1953. Bond, V.P., Varma, M.N., Sondhaus, C.A., and Feinendegen, L.E. alternative to absorbed dose, quality, and RBE at low exposures. Radiat. Kes. 104, $-52-8-57, 1935. 19 ny 500 1%b3 An