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