biological effects of rad Flashcards

(25 cards)

1
Q

Modulator

LET =

A

linear energy transfer = dE/dl… energy deposited per unit length
high LET = lots of concentrated damage
low results in scattered damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Modulator

RBE= ?

A

radiological biological effectiveness
have same biological endpoint- comparison of source to reference
RBE = D ref/ D test
RBE ~ QF ~ Wr

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

modulator

mitotic cell cycle

A

most sensitive M and G2

least in late S phase

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

linear and quadratic effects are equal at…

A

D = alpha/beta

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Modulator

Fractionated Radiation

A

Repair of normal tissue
reassortment
but, could have repopulation if interval too long

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Modulator

Dose Rate

A

low dose…a little over time

high dose causes more damage more quickly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Modulator

Oxygen effect

A

low LET radiation have higher effect

presence of oxygen sets the damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Radiation carcinogenesis

A

it is, esp. at high doses and high dose rates.
good epidemological evidence for acute exposures above 0.2 to 5 Gy
Inversely correlated to age at exposure
females more sensitive
minimum latency…
~ 3 yrs leukemia, 4 yrs bone, 5 yrs thyroid, 10 yrs solid
Mean latency about 20-30 yrs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

reports

A

icrp 99
BIER VII
icrp 103. Tissue weighting factors update
preston, et. al….good report on organs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

heritable effects?

A

not detectable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

In Utero

A

sources… lou wagner wrote the book, or Brent
most risk…1 st trimester
No malformations 100-1000 mGy 3rd trimester
Termination of pregnancy at

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

cataracts

A

operative cataract odds ratio of 1.4 at 1 Gy
dose threshold seen at 0.1 Gy- upper bound of 0.8 Gy

ICRP 2011 statement on tissue reaction says lens of eye threshold to be 0.5 GY ( limit to 20 mSv/yr averaged over 5 yrs. No single year > 50 mSv)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

cardiovascular

A

RT patients effects 1-2 Gy show risk 10-20 yrs later

circulatory disease threshold is now 0.5 Gy to heart or brain per ICRP 2011 statement on tissue reactions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Tissue and organ sensitivities

A

no functional impairment…

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Background rad in us

A

~ 6.3 mSv/y with med component

~ 2 mrem/ day

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Typical general radiology doses

dental

A
dental...  0.05 mSv
Chest... 0.1 mSv
Head... 0.1 mSv
Mammography...0.7
abdomen...1.2 mSv
pET CT ( CT only)...0.72 mSv
head CT... 2 mSv
chest...7 mSv
abdomen or pelvis...10 mSv
CT angiograpy...13 mSv
17
Q

typical nuclear med

A

f-18…9 mSv
i-131… 1 mCi 7.5 mSv
tc-99…5 mSv
i-131 therapy…270 mSv

18
Q

Low dose

A

10 cGy..

below a different group of genes repair damage than the group that repairs higher dose damage

19
Q

expanded paradigm

A

production of damage is linear

Response to damage is not- different sets of genes

20
Q

Risk

A

whole population… 5.5% per Sv
adult…4.1% per Sv

Less than ~0.2 Sv… no evidence of any effects

Not for individuals
Aapm PP-25a less than 50mSv don’t use

21
Q

Effective dose- can you use for an individual?

Additional problem with literature…

A

NO!… it is from average man/woman values to phantoms

When you see effective dose, there is no mention of which icrp report they used…26, 60, or 103… weighting factors change

22
Q

effective dose calcs- how accurate?

A

order of magnitude!

don’t use decimals…no meaning as accuracy is not good…
Can use to see if doses go up or down.

23
Q

if effective dose cannot be used to assess risk, what can?

A

effects at low doses require hugh cohorts to assess effects…bomb survivors not that numerous.
had some rad workers that meet numbers…not suitable via BEIR. Bottom line…lots of uncertainty- giving a number is silly.

24
Q

LNT- 2006 French Academy of Sciences

A

LNT relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data

Damage is linear, but biological response is not

25
Hall
Below 100 mSv, it has not been proven there is any risk. LNT is used to estimate risk for occupational purposes. Cannot predict from the data