,
«
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