C
nS
averaged over the small tissue volume within 40 um from the surface of
the ceramic microspheres is ~17,000 rads perr year for the 0.07 pCi microspheres, or ~200,0290
alpna disintegrations per year within each micrcgraw
of irradiated tissue.
The dose rate is correspondingly higher arcund the
microspheres of greater activity.
Less than one
illigram of tissue, only
one millionth of the lung, is subjected to these massive radiation doses.
The limited biological response obtained in these experiments
is
consistent with expectations based on Barendser's results (2718) , the smail
population of cells within the alpha range arcund the microspheres experdence so many alpha interactions that they all receive chromosome structural changes that result in their mitotic death.
microspheres are immobile in tissue.
The 10 um diameter
Also their specific alpha activity
is sce low compared to pure Pud, that their surface recoil ablation and
aissoluticn rates are negligibly iow.
Thus in these experiments there
is no large population of cells which are subjected to a limited number
of alpha interactions, as is the case for Sanders crushed *?°Pu0, microsphere experirents 2),
Richmond and Voeiz 1?) observed only two lung
tumors (at 9.5 months and 12 months in animals exposed to 2000 ceramic
microspheres of 0.42 pCi 233py per microsphere) for a total of 10° hot
particles.
It is proposed that these two tumors may be attributed to
secondary protons ejected by alpha intevactions with hydrogen atoms.
expected yield ts one proton per 104 alpha interactions.
The
Such protons
have energies of about 100 KeV and a range about 4 times that of the alpha
particle.
Thus these secondary protons irradiate 63 times as many lung
cells at correspondingly much lower doses.
It is unlikely that the two
tumors observed in these experiments can be attributed to X-rays or
.
Y-rays fiom plutonium for reasons discussed by Warren and Gates
gee Oe
wOaYE
?
ed rettoad
ret eyRERS pet
at
7
(35,36)
edva