ToC | Prev

## Index and Glossary

o -- Format of Exponents and Subscripts in This Book :

In this book, "raised to a power" is most often expressed by the symbol ^. Thus, Dose^2 means Dose Squared. Dose^1.4 means Dose raised to the power 1.4 . Dose^0.5, which is Dose raised to the power (1/2), is of course the same as the square root of Dose. 10^6 means million, and 10^-6 means "per million." Rad^-1 means "per rad," and cm^-3 means "per cubic centimeter.

Less frequently, we use the common computer notation in which E+ or E- signifies the base "10" and the next number signifies the power. Thus 2.3E+13 means 2.3 x 10^13, and 2.3E-13 means 2.3 x 10^-13. Our Table 20-C illustrates the conversion from one format to another.

For the "prime" and "double-prime" superscripts, we use the single and double quote-marks.

Subscripts in this book are indicated by their position, not by their size. In Chapter 15, for instance, D2 means D-sub-two. By contrast, 2D means (2 times D).

o -- Significant Figures, Trailing Digits, Rounding-Off :

Sometimes entries in our tables appear to be "wrong" in the last digit. This is a common nuisance in the computer age, where analysts are routinely working with many more "trailing digits" than the readers can see. The "trailing digit" phenomenon is illustrated in our Table 11-A, Step 1.

In efforts to reduce the ostensible discrepancies, analysts are discarding the past rules about rounding-off and about showing only "significant figures." For instance, the BEIR-3 Report shows lots of non-significant digits, and comments (Beir80, p.145) that "... the intention is to facilitate the reconstruction of the final results by readers who may wish to reconstruct them, rather than to suggest an unwarranted accuracy of the estimates." The BEIR-5 report makes exactly the same comment (Beir90, p.192).

We think that this BEIR decision is a piece of good common sense, and we also show many digits in this book which are not formally "significant." Some small discrepancies develop no matter what one does, however, since input sometimes comes from a "rounded-off" hard-copy, and sometimes from the digit-rich computer memory. Readers should just not worry over small discrepancies, but of course we encourage readers to tell us if any big ones turn up.

o -- Format of the Index :

THE STAR FLAG.   For readers whose first language is not English, or who are new to this particular field, the entries flagged by a star (i.e., asterisk -- `*') locate the meaning of a term or phrase in context. Some definitions, if brief, are provided right in the Index. For easy reference, the Index decodes abbreviations too.

SEQUENCE.   Our alphabetical sequence of entries ignores space and punctuation. Thus an entry like "K-values, by age" is alphabetized as if it were a single word: Kvaluesbyage. The "star flag" comes ahead of any comparable entries.

INDEX ABBREVIATIONS.   Ta means Table. Pt means Part. T means through. Thus 23-12 T 15 means "Chapter 23, pages 12 through 15."

IMAGES OR PHRASES:   For readers who recall an image but not the context, some specific words and phrases receive their own entries (for instance: Canary; Peoria; Lizzie Borden; "Radiobiological grounds"; "Tortured mathematics"; "Violent disassembly").

[ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | XYZ ]

At the present time (March, 1998), we have hooked-up only a very small amount of the page numbers in this index back to their respective positions in the text of the chapters currently online. As a substitute, links are provided to each chapter. Once inside each chapter Edit->Find (Ctrl-F) will identify some of the entries. However this index also identifies page locations topically where the specific [topical] words listed here will not be found.

Chp 1:       The Five Most Important Conclusions of This Book
Chp 2:       The Role of Independent Analyses in Research on Toxic Agents
Chp 4:       Overview of a Uniquely Valuable Database
Chp 5:       A Growing Problem:   Retroactive Alteration of the Study
Chp 6:       What Will Happen to the A-Bomb Database?   A Pending Proposal
Chp 7:       Collecting All the Required Data from RERF
Chp 8:       Dosimetry:   From Bomb, to Kerma to Internal Organ-Dose
Chp 9:       Converting T65DR Mean Kerma Values to Mean Internal Organ-Doses
Chp 10:     Obtaining Mean DS86 Doses for the T65DR Cohorts
Chp 11:     Achievement of Age- and Sex-Matching across the Dose-Groups
Chp 12:     The Focus on Two Central Questions
Chp 13:     Analysis and Results by the Cancer Difference Method
Chp 14:     Shape of the Dose-Response Relationship, and Low-Dose
Cancer-Yields Based on the Best-Fit Curve
Chp 15:     Radiation Risk by Age and Sex, from the Cancer-Rate Ratio Method
Chp 16:     Low-Dose Cancer-Yields by the Cancer-Rate Ratio Method,
for A-Bomb Survivors and for the United States
Chp 17:     The Duration of Radiation's Carcinogenic Effect
Chp 18:     Disproof of Any Safe Dose or Dose-Rate of Ionizing Radiation,
with Respect to Induction of Cancer in Humans
Chp 19:     The Special Interaction of Ionizing Radiation with Living Tissue
Chp 21:     Decisive Epidemiological Evidence from Humans
Chp 22:     The Popularity of Risk-Reduction Factors in the Radiation Community
Chp 23:     Proper Risk-Estimates for "Low and Slow" Exposures:   No Conflict between
Chp 25:     Main Text:   A Closing Statement
Chp 26:     Master Table and Special RERF Data for the A-Bomb Study

o   ==================================
```< means "is less than."  > means "is greater than."
ABCC = Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission.  4-1
A-Bomb Study: see ABS.
A-bomb survivors*, 5-3
ABS = A-Bomb Study.  Chapters 4 T 17, 26 T 31.
Average gamma ray energy, 32-3
Dosimetry improvements welcome 1-2;  5-3,8;  25-1
Excess cancer proven below 20 rems, 13-4,5,7;
25-8;  27-Pt 1
First crisis for new dosimetry, 25-9,10;  30-1
Follow-up 1950-1982 is the KEY one, 6-1
Follow-up beyond 1982 not avail'b for CC-DD, 6-2
Follow-up periods listed, Ta17-A,B
History of its handling, 5-ALL
Inherent scientific virtues, 4-1,2;  12-5;
14-6,8;  23-9
Key study in UNSCEAR-88 and BEIR-5, 25-4,5
Second half to be crucial, 5-8;  17-9
Similar results in T65 & DS86, 14-9
See: Cancer-Yield.  Dose-Groups.  Dose-response.
Absolute risk model, invalidated by ABS, 17-3,4
Accelerated vs. extra cancers, 12-3;  14-5;  18-9
"Achilles Heel" = vulnerable spot.  18-3
created by neutron-capture (not by fission) --
the "neutron-in, gamma-out" reaction.
Activation products, 5-7
Active fraction of cells in modified LQ equation,
23-5,6;  Ta23-A;  Fig23-A
a very short time.
Acute rad'n sickness, death before 1950, 11-2
Age-bands, range provided, Ta4-B;  Ta11-A;  Ta26-E
Age-corrections reduce rad'n risk, 11-3;  13-3
Age-sensitivity, 3-1;  4-2;  11-2;  13-6,7;
15-3,8;  16-2,3,4;  17-4;  21-7,18;  36-3,20
Effect on Lifetime Fatal Ca-Yield, 16-2,4;  25-6
Aggregate injury vs. indiv. risk, 24-13,14,17,20;
25-14,16
Airplane crashes (Chernobyl perspective), 24-15
Alexander 1988a, 3-2;  24-17,18;  34-1
Alexander 1988b, 3-2;  24-17,18,19;  34-1
Alexander on threshold, 3-2;  24-19;  34-1
Alive in 1982, 4-1 & Ta4-A, 12-5;  13-6;  28-ALL
Alpha rad'n = large charged particle (two protons +
two neutrons) emitted by certain radionuclides.
"Anchor" of T65DR database, 6-1
Anderson 1988, 35-14
Ankylosing spondylitis = rheumatoid arthritis of
the spine.
Ankylosing Spondylitis Study, 17-Parts 3 + 4
Retroactive dose-changes, 17-7
Anspaugh 1988(Doe88), 1-4;  24-2,6,7,8,9,11,13,14,
Ta24-A;  25-13,16;  34-2
Architecture of a study (as part of input), 6-1,2
"Asking too much from a database,"  12-2
Aspirin analogy (threshold, hormesis), 34-8;  35-2
Associated Press 1989, 24-2
ATB = at time of bombing (August, 1945).
Atomic number = number of protons in atom's nucleus.
```

o -- "Man's most valuable trait is a judicious
sense of what not to believe." -- Euripides

B
```"Background" dose harmful, 21-13 T 16;  25-15;  34-8
"Ball-park" estimate = loose estimate.
Baral 1977, 21-18
Barendsen 1985, 20-7
Baum 1973, 22-2
Baverstock 1981, 18-9,10;  21-7;  35-16
Baverstock 1983 and 1987, 21-7
Baverstock 1989, 19-6
Beebe 1970, 4-1
Beebe 1971, 4-1;  5-3,4;  11-1
Beebe 1977, 4-1
Beebe 1978, 4-1;  5-4;  8-5;  9-1;  Ta9-B;  22-3
BEIR = Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation.
BEIR-1 1972, ankylosing Spondylitics, 17-7
BEIR-1 1972, linear dose-response, 22-9
BEIR-3 1980 Report: 1-1;  8-5,8;  Ta9-A;  11-3,4;
13-6; 14-6,7;  21-1,14,19;  22-2,3,4,9,12;
23-5;  25-6,13;  34-2,6
Cancer-Yield, 24-6;  25-6
"Compromise Group,"  37-1
Dose-response, internal fight, 22-4,9;  37-1
No acute estimates below 10 rems, 14-7;  34-2,7
"No suggestion of upward curvature,"  22-3
On Denver-Type studies, 21-14;  24-16
On leukemia dose-response, 22-3,9
On threshold, 34-2
Permitted no negative Q-term, 22-3,4,9
Used wrong curve for solid ca, 14-7;  22-9;  23-5
BEIR-5 1990 Report, Foreword-1,2;  1-2;  25-ALL
Cancer-Yield, 25-6,12
No dual-dosimtry, 25-2,3
No track-analysis, 25-14
On shape of dose-response, 25-9,12,13
On repair, 25-14
On threshold, safe dose, 25-14
Below Regulatory Concern, 1-5;  3-4;  23-15; 24-19;  25-16
Bender 1982 and 1984, 18-5
Benefits (alleged):  see Hormesis.
Benefit-risk judgments, 24-19 past;  25-16 future
Beral 1985 and 1987, 21-11
Berry 1987, 22-9
"Best available evidence is best AVAILABLE,"  16-2
"Best estimate" = "central value"*, Foreword-2;
Table 13-B, Note 5
Best fit equation, 14-1,2,8,9;  29-ALL
Beta particles, as high-speed electrons, 19-2
Beyond 1982 (ABS data for CC-DD analysis), Fore-1;
6-2;  13-7;  14-6;  16-5;  23-9;  25-7,9;  30-1
Bhopal accident (Chernobyl perspective), 24-14,15
Bias in research and analysis:
Conflict-of-interest, 2-1
Conscious and unconscious, 5-1
Fraudulent work: see Fraudulent research.
Generic hazard in dose re-examination, 21-9
If I were to ignore supra-linearity, 15-1
If I were to ignore weight of evidence
against any threshold 18-7, or
for lifelong duration of radiation effect 17-9
If I were to "prefer" Cancer Diff. Method, 16-4
In ABS, no evidence of bias yet, 5-8
Objectivity yielding to bias, 21-19
Potential not addressed in Zu86, 24-16
Billion people vs. 91,231 people, 14-4;  15-7
Biochemical milieu, 23-5,8,9
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation = BEIR.
Blinding not done or not possible, in DS86, 5-4,5
Body transmission-factors, higher for DS86,
8-3;  Ta9-A;  Ta10-E Note 3
Boice 1977, 21-3;  22-3
Boice 1978, 21-1,3,4
Boice 1979, 22-3;  34-6
Boice 1981, 21-13
Boice 1985, 17-6
Bond 1978, 13-4
Bond 1984, 18-5
Bone-cancer (Un86), 22-11
"Bounciness" of data by 4-year intervals, 17-3,4
Boveri 1914 & 1929,  18-2
Box, in the*, 12-3.  Box = closable container.
Bq = Becquerel.  One Bq = 1 radioactive
disintegration per second.  One Bq per 27 pCi.
Brackenbush 1988, 18-3,5;  20-3,7;  33-9
Beir80, 22-9
Beir90, 25-5,6
Davis87, 21-12,13
Evans86, 22-10,11
Generalizing from, 21-20;  22-3,6
Go81, 23-5
Gofman & Tamplin 1970, vii
Howe84, 21-4;  22-14,15
Hrubec89, 21-12
In ABS, 8-6;  22-3;  23-5
MacKenzie65, vii
Miller89, 22-14,15
Ncrp80, 22-3; 23-5
Nih85, 22-5
Nrc85 and Nrc89, 22-10
Prediction about young ATB, in Go81, 17-6
Waka83, 22-5
Wanebo68, vii
Breast doses: 20-fold change w. beam direction, 21-3
"Bright prospects" from repair, 18-3
Brodsky 1978, 33-1
Burden of proof (of hazard), 25-16;  34-7
Burns 1981, 18-5
```

o -- "To believe with certainty, we must begin
with doubting." -- Stanilaus, King of Poland

C
```Ca = cancer.
Calculated = estimated = predicted rates, 29-1 T 4
"Cancer-factory,"  12-5
Cancer, the disease:
Breast-cancer: see Breast-cancer entry.
Genetic and unicellular origin, 18-2,3,15
Prevention, 1-5;  3-1,2;  18-1,18;  24-19;
25-17;  35-21;  36-22
Rate per 10,000, calc'n,  Table 13-A, Note 1
Sites (organs):  see Site-specific analyses.
Spontaneous ca-mortality USA, 22% in 1986, 21-14
Cancer-Yield*, 12-1,3,4
By best-fit, alike in T65 & DS86, 14-9
Conversion to % increase in spont, 16-2;  24-4
Difference: linear vs. concave-upward, 24-9
Difference: linear vs. supra-L, 25-13,  [15-6,7]
Lifetime value and age-handling, 16-5;  25-3
Utility despite inexactitude, 16-4
Cancer-Yield, various estimates:
Beir80, 24-6
Beir90, 25-6,12
Gofman, list of all, Table 24-B
Canc Diff Method, Ta13-B, Tables 14-A,B,C
Canc-Rate Ratio Method, 16-3;  Tables 16-A,B,C
Nrc85, 24-7
Preston & Pierce, 22-13;  Ta24-B
Shimizu 1988, 24-10,11;  Ta24-B
UNSCEAR 1977 (value of 1.0), exact quote, 22-7,8
Popular for Chernobyl analyses, 24-9
Called "official,"  24-9,15
UNSCEAR 1988, 25-4, 11
Causality and confounding variables, 12-4,5;
21-5,6,8,9,18;  Denver-Type studies 21-14 T 17
Causality, supported by dose-response trend, 4-1:
21-8;  22-21
Causality, in-utero studies, 21-5,6,7,8,9
CC-DD = Constant-cohort, dual-dosimetry.
Cell, cuboidal model, 20-4;  33-5
Cell-inactivation term*, 23-5
Discussion, 23-1,5,6;  23-Pt 7
Cell-killing, 22-2;  23-1,5,6;  25-5,8,9
Cell-nucleus, diameter, 20-3,4;  33-7 T 10
Cell-sterilization, 22-2,8;  23-5,6
Cell studies with mitotic stimulants, 35-10,15
Cell transformation studies & dose-rate, 23-8,9
Central estimate = "Best estimate,"  Ta27-B, Note 4
Cesium-134 (Chernobyl fallout), 36-ALL
Cesium-137, 3-2;  8-9;  20-2;  24-4;  36-ALL
From weapons-testing, 36-8,17,28
Losing 1 part per 1000, impact, 25-17
cGy or centi-gray*, 20-1
Centi-gray, relatng to centi-sievert,  Index-12
"Cherished hypothesis" vs. data, 23-1
Chernobyl accident (26 April 1986), Chapters 24, 36.
Dose-range of interest, 14-6,7;  24-12;  36-19
Equivalents by slow non-explosive release, 25-17
Excluding doses beyond 50 years, 24-6,8
Excluding low doses from estimates, 24-18,19,20
Global & stellar perspective, 24-13,14;  25-16
Small indiv. vs. huge collective dose,
24-3,11,13,17
UNSCEAR-88 comment, 25-16
"Violent disassembly" euphemism (DOE), 24-7
Chernobyl-induced cancers, estimates, Tables 24-A,B
Alexander, 24-18
Gofman, 24-1,4,5, Ta24-A,B;  36-ALL
Goldman et al, 24-6,7,8
RERF (as basis), 24-10, Ta24-B;  25-16
Webster, 24-15,17
"Chickens home to roost,"  24-13,14
China and radiation research, 24-2,16,17;  35-15
Chi-square test, 27-1
Christy 1987, 5-6;  8-4
Chromosome aberrations:
Duration, 35-17
In nuclear shipyard workers, 35-16,17,18
Radiation-induced (lab), 18-3;  35-Pts 4 + 8
Repair of, 18-3,5;  35-Pts 4+8
Chromosome breaks, by single-track action, 19-8
Cigarettes, 17-8 spondylitics;  21-12 TB patients
Cohen 1987, 35-2
Cohort = a group, a band.
Colon cancer and diagnostic X-rays, 17-5
Colon: see Large intestine.
Combining DG 1 + 2: see Dose-Groups 1+2.
Comparability of dose-groups, 11-1,2;  12-3,4;
21-14,17;  22-21
Competing cause of death, 11-2;  12-5;  15-8
Compton effect/process, 20-2,3;  32-ALL
Concave-downward shape*,  Figure 13-C
And modified LQ model, Figures 23-D,G
Concave-upward shape*, Figure 13-C
And unmodified LQ model, Figures 23-B,C
"Concrete, set in,"  5-1,2
Confidence-limits, 13-3, Ta13-B;  27-Pt 2
Conflict-of-interest, 2-1
Confounding variables, 4-2;  11-1,2;  12-4,5;  17-8;
21-ALL;  35-4,15
Congdon 1987, 35-3,4,5
Consensus, artificial, 2-1;  24-15
"Consensus of scientific community" (Ansp88), 22-12
"Consensus" on DREFS, 22-7,12 Ansp88;  25-11 Beir90
Consensus vs. independent analysts (Mog89), 24-15
Constant-cohort, dual-dosimetry idea*, 6-1,2
Constant-cohort, dual-dosimetry method, Chaps 6 + 25
Decision pending at RERF,  5-9,10;  6-1,2
Demonstrated: Chapters 9 through 17, and 30.
Everything to be gained, 6-2;  25-3
General need for, 5-ALL;  25-Pt 1;  25-9,10
Needed for Spondylitics, 17-7
Needed to avert first crisis, 25-9,10;  30-1
Not used by RERF, 5-7,8;  14-3;  24-10;  25-10
Constant K-values through time, 16-2;  17-1 T 4
"Constant, meaning y-intercept, 15-5;  Ta29-B,C
"Constant risk-ratio through time, 13-5;  17-1 T 4;
28-1
Continuity issue for A-Bomb Study, 1-2;
5-5,6,7,8, Ta5-A+B;  6-1;  10-1,2;  25-1,3,6
Control group = Reference Group, 9-1;  11-2
Cooperative Study of Lipoproteins 1956, 5-1
Correlation coefficient squared*, 29-1;  Ta29-D
Cross-over of DS86-T65 kermas, Ta10-C
Crisis for A-Bomb Study, 25-9,10;  30-1
Cumulative cancer-rates: see Aggregate.
Curie (Ci) of X is the amount of X required to
produce 37 billion radioactive decays per second.
Curvature: see Dose-response shape.
```

o -- "If at first you don't succeed, you are
running about average." -- M.H. Alderson

D
```Darby 1987, 17-5,7,8,9
Dartmouth College (Wennberg), 34-3
Davis 1987, 21-12
Death of epidemiology as a science,  Fore-1;  25-2
"Dedicated group of scientists" (DOE), 24-13
Delta rays, 19-2
"De minimis non curat lex" (the law does not
concern itself with trifles): see Exclusion of
low doses from risk-benefit estimates.
Denver-Type study*, 21-13
And Alexander, 24-17,18
And Beir80, 21-14;  24-16
And Sagan, 35-14,15
And Webster, 24-16
China (Liu87), 35-15
China (Zu86), 24-16
Department of Energy (USA): see Doe; see Watkins.
Dependent variable (on y-axis), 29-2
DeSaia 1989, 8-5
Detectable real vs. UNdetectable real effects,
18-18;  21-9,10,13,14;  24-11,12,14,20;  35-20
Diagnostic errors, A-bomb in-utero series, 21-5,6
Diagnostic errors and site-specific analyses,
11-3,4;  12-3;  25-5
Diseased organs, effect on ca-latency, 22-19,24
Doe 1987, 1-4;  14-6;  22-12;  24-6,7,8,9,11,12,13,
24-14,18, Ta24-A;  34-1,2,3
Doe 1988: see Anspaugh.
DOE clean-up costs, 24-14,15;  25-13
DOE proposal to revise dosimetry, 5-5 (Kerr)
DOE, safe dose, 1-4;  24-12,13;  25-13
Dorland 1951, 35-1
Dose at cell-nucleus level*, 19-1;  20-6;
34-6;  35-4
Dose at tissue-level*, 19-1;  34-6;  35-4
Dose-Group 2, mean organ-doses 1.5 & 1.9 rems, 8-5
Dose-Group 3 being lowest exposed group, 11-3
Dose-Group 8, dose underestimated by RERF, 14-2
Dose-Groups, by cities, Ta9-D
Dose-Groups 1+2 in A-Bomb Study:
Mean internal dose of only 654 millirems or 861
millirems, 8-5;  9-1
Providing the spontaneous rate, 13-3;  28-1
Should be combined, 8-5;  11-2;  Ta28-A;  35-20
Dose-Groups 2 and 3, subdivision:
Half-groups w. different ages ATB, 7-2
Subdividing underway, 5-8;  7-2;  8-5;  Ta26-N;
35-20
Dose-Groups 6+7+8 combined, 11-2,3;  22-13
Dose, proportionality with tracks, 20-1
Dose rate effectiveness factor: see DREF.
Dose-rate: lowest conceivable, 18-4;  20-6,7;
23-13;  25-13
Dose-rate: occupational, 21-7 (Lumin.);  35-16,18
Dose-response model = mathematical equation which
describes how response varies with changing dose.
Dose-response relationship, Table 13-C*:
And causality, 4-1;  21-8;  22-21
"Cherished hypothesis" of upward curvature, 23-1
Epidemiologic reality-check, see: Reality-check.
Equation of best fit, Chapter 29
Good fit described & depicted, 14-3, Fig14-A
"Repair" not delivering upward curvature,
18-6,7;  21-19,20
Same in initial persons and person-yrs, 30-ALL
Same in T65DR & DS86, 14-1,2,8
Dose-response shape, various analysts:
Linear in shape (Beir80), 22-3,9
Linear in shape (Unsc88), 25-8,9
Linear or supra-L in shape (Beir90), 25-5,9
Linear or supra-L in shape (RERF 87, 88), 14-3,4;
24-11
Pre-judgment of shape (Beir80), 22-3,9;  Fig23-H
Pre-judgment of shape (Ncrp80), 23-4
Pre-judgment of shape (Nih85), 23-4,5
Supra-linear (Gofman), Chapters 14, 29, 30
Upward curvature, consensus in past, 22-ALL
Dose^power, 29-2;  Ta29-D
Doubling dose*, 22-22
"Downstream" victims of poor research, 24-2,3
DREF = Dose-rate effectiveness factor.  Chapter 22.
DREF*, 22-1
BEIR-3, 22-12 (bottom right)
BEIR-5, 25-10,ll,12
BEIR-5, "Nevertheless...",  25-12
"Cherished hypothesis" vs. data, 23-1
"The ultimate DREF", 22-25
"Two to ten" range, 22-4,10,12,14;  25-10,11,12
UNSCEAR 1988, 22-14;  25-10
"Droop" (future K-values), 16-4
DS86 = Dosimetry System 1986.
Leaving lots unsettled, 8-3,4
DS86 subcohort*, 5-7, Table 5-B
DS86: what was the rush?, 5-7
Duration of radiation effect, 4-1;  12-3;  13-5,6;
15-Pt 7;  16-2;  Chap 17 ALL;  25-6
```

o -- "If you have an important point to make,
don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile-driver.
Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it
again. Then hit it a third time -- a tremendous
whack!" -- Winston Churchill

E
```e*, 20-9;  Ta23-A
E = Expected rate; rate in an unexposed group.
Earthquake rescuers, 24-20
Effective track*, 18-11
Electric Power Research Institute: see EPRI.
Elias 1978, 20-3
Ellett 1987, 5-6,7,8;  8-1,4
Embrace of data from China, USSR, uncritically,
24-2,8,15,16;  35-15
Embrace of Holm Study conclusions, uncritically,
22-15,16,19;  34-9
"Enhancement" of a database, 5-7;  6-1
Enthusiasm for new dosimetry, versus unintended
consequences, 5-8,9;  6-2
"Entitled" (nature is), 16-2
Environmental dose: see Exclusion, see "Background."
Epidemiology = a science identifying and measuring
the factors which determine the frequency of a
disease in a population.
Epidemiology, death of, Foreword;  25-2
Epidemiology (human) as reality-check on laboratory
and non-human data: see Reality-check.
EPRI = Electric Power Research Institute.
And Catlin (Doe87, Doe88), 24-6;  34-2
And HEALTH PHYSICS JOURNAL, 35-2
And hormetic research, and Sagan, 35-2
Equation for a straight line, 15-2,5
Equation of best fit*, 29-3;  Ta29-D
Estimated = predicted = calculated, 29-3
eV = electron-volt.
Evans, H.J. 1979 and 1987, 35-16
Evans, J.S. 1985: see Nrc85.
Evans, J.S. 1986, 22-10,11;  34-3
Evans, R.D. 1955, 33-2
Evolution and mutations (Sheldon Wolff), 35-10,11
Excess relative risk*, 17-2
Excessive subdivision of data:
Biologically meaningless values, 35-20,21
Causes small-numbers problem, 22-6;  25-8;  35-20
Delays insights indefinitely 22-11;  25-8;  35-21
Every database rendered inconclusive, 4-2;  12-2;
25-8;  35-20
Overinterpretation of "wiggles,"  17-3
Results taken seriously, 25-8;  35-20,21
Statistical significance removable, 35-20,21
Thin data invite errors, 12-2;  22-6;  35-20
Exclusion of low doses from risk-benefit estimates,
1-5;  3-2;  18-18;  22-25;  23-15;  24-18,19,20
25-16
Exp, in equations*, 20-9;  23-4, Ta23-A
Expected, or E in O/E*, 17-2
Expected cancer-rates (meaning without a dose), 5-2
"Experts disagree?"  22-4;  25-9;  30-1
Reason for disparity on Ca-Yield, 25-13
Reason for disparity on Chernobyl, 24-8,9
Exponential modifier of two-term equation*, 23-4
Extrapolation:
ABS high-dose data less reliable than low, 22-13;
24-10
Extrapolation not needed from high doses, 13-7;
14-1,7,8;  15-7;  22-13;  23-3,10;  25-8
Increase-factors needed, not DREFS, 23-9,10
Linear extrapolation as an issue, 15-7;
22-2,7,8,9,11;  23-3;  34-6,7
"Eyebrow raising" (on altered studies), 6-1
```

o -- "If you have anything to tell me of
importance, for God's sake begin at the end."

F
```Fallout, cesium from weapons-testing, 36-28
Fallout doses, Hiroshima & Nagasaki,  5-7;  8-3
Fallout doses, Chernobyl, Ta24-A+B;  36-ALL
"Fashionable" (no way to settle threshold), 21-19
FBI = Federal Bureau of Investigation (USA).  24-14
Feinendegen 1987, 35-5,6,7,8,9
Feinendegen 1988, 18-3,5;  20-7;  35-5,6,7,8,9
Fever (equivalent of 400 rads), 19-1
"Figments of the imagination" (Taylor), 34-5
Flags not worn by low-dose cancers, 18-2,17
Flags of warning (about neutron overestimation), 8-6
Fluence = number of traversals per unit area in some
specified time-period.
Flukes (statistical), 21-18
"Forty years of searching" (Taylor & Wolfe), 34-5,8
Fraudulent research (prevention), 5-1,2,3;  24-2,3
Free radicals from normal metabolism, 19-6;
35-3,5,7,8
Free radicals, induced by tracks, 19-4,5;  35-3,5,7
Free radicals: threshold speculation (Yalow), 19-6;
similar speculations 35-3,9 (Fein87,88)
Freeman 1987b, 19-2,3
Frigerio 1976, 21-14
Fry 1981, 8-8,9
Fry 1987, 5-8;  8-3,7
"Fully competent carcinogenic lesion,"  19-8
Funding of radiation research, 1-1;  24-13,14;
35-2,21
```

o -- "If you keep your mind sufficiently open,
people will throw a lot of rubbish into it."
-- William A. Orton

G
```Gamma rays, as photons, 19-2
Gardner 1976, 20-3
Generalizing about humans from non-human data,
22-ALL;  25-11,13.  See Non-human data.
Generalizing from ABS about shape, 14-6
Genetic injury heritable, 1-5;  18-1;  24-19;  35-21
Gilbert 1985 & 1989, 22-10;  34-3
Gilman 1988, 21-5
Global perspective, Chernobyl, 24-13,14;  25-16
Gofman 1950a, 1950b, 1954,   5-1
Gofman 1956: see Cooperative Study.
Gofman 1966, viii
Gofman 1969, vii;  5-3;  13-6
Gofman 1970, vii
Gofman 1971, vii
Gofman 1979, 21-11
Gofman 1981, 5-4;  8-4,6;  12-1;  13-6;  14-6;
Ta16-C; 18-1;  19-1;  21-1,5,11,13;  22-4;  23-5;
24-4;  Ta24-A,B;  25-13
Gofman 1983, 8-7
Gofman 1985, 3-1;  8-7;  21-11,12,19;  24-5;  34-7,9
Gofman 1986, 18-1;  20-3,5;  21-1,3;
24-1,4,5,8,9,15, Tables 24-A,B;  33-7;  34-9
Gofman 1987, 35-15
Gofman 1988a (hormesis), 35-2
Gofman 1988b (dual dosimetry), 5-3
Gofman 1988c (interim analysis), 5-5;  11-3
Gofman 1989a (supra-linearity for 3 follow-ups),
5-4,5;  11-3;  14-6;  30-1
Gofman 1989b (response per 10K PYR), 6-1;  30-1
Goldman 1987: see Doe87.
Goldman on threshold, 34-2
Goldschmidt 1985, 34-3
Good fit described & depicted, 14-3, Ta14-D, Fig14-A
Goodhead 1988, 18-4;  19-5,6;  20-4;  33-10
Grahn, Douglas, 35-5
Guilford 1956, 29-2
```
o   ==================================
```Hall 1981, 23-8,10,11
Hammersen 1985, 20-3
Hancock, Malcolm "Mal,"  vii
"An independent analyst of a different sort."

Hanford nuclear workers, 21-11
Harper 1957, 21-16
Harvard University (Evans, McNeil), 34-3
Harvey 1985, 21-8,9;  34-6
Hayek 1987, 29-1,2,3,4;  Tables 30-D,E
Health Physics Journal, 3-2;  24-17;  35-2
Health Physics Society (Alexander), 3-2;  24-17
Heritable genetic damage, 1-5;  18-1;  24-19;  35-21
Heterogeneity of populations, 23-6;  35-18"
Hickey 1981, 21-14;  34-3,4;  35-1
Hickey 1985, 34-9
Hickey 1988, 34-3,4
High Background Radiation, China, 24-16;  35-15
High-LET*, 8-10
Agreement on no threshold, 18-1
Earlier induction of cancer, 8-7
Hildreth 1983, 1985, 1989, 17-6
Hill 1984, 20-7
Hiroshima bomb, yield uncertain, 5-7;  8-3,4
"Hit," by a track, 19-1;  20-5,7
Hoffman 1985, 12-1
Hogue 1989, 35-2
Holm 1980a and 1980b, 22-15,16
Holm 1988, 21-13;  22-Pt 5
Consistent w. opposite conclusions, 22-23,25
Honseki*, 5-3
Hormesis*, 1-4;  35-1,3
Hormesis, allusions outside Chapter 35, 1-4;
18-2;  25-1;  34-3,4,8,9;  36-22
Hormesis and deadliness of error, 35-2,19,21
Howe 1984, 17-6;  21-4,5;  22-14,15
Hrubec 1989, 21-12
Hypothesis:
Of concave-upward human dose-response, 14-6,8;
22-ALL;  23-1,2,3
Of flawless repair, 18-2,9;  21-Pt 1
Of genetic basis of carcinogenesis, 18-2,3,15
Of hormesis, 35-1
Of LQ dose-response*, 23-1,9
Of safe dose, 18-1,15,16
Of troublesome trio, 18-6,7,16
"Hypothetical" cancer, 12-3;  13-3,7;  18-18;
24-19;  25-14
```

o -- "When your work speaks for itself, don't
interrupt." -- Henry J. Kaiser

I
```Iceberg, tip of, 1-5
ICRP = International Commission on Radiological
Protection.
ICRP 1977, 22-1,8,9
ICRP raising neutron RBE by factor of two, 8-9
Ilyin 1987 (U.S.S.R 1987b), 24-7,8
Ilyin 1988 (U.S.S.R 1988), 24-7,8
Immune system, 18-2,17;  35-13,14
Incidence vs. mortality, 12-2,3;  21-13 (breast RR)
Inconclusive studies, nature of, 21-Pt 2, 21-17
Inconsistency:
On acceptable control-groups, 22-25
On conjecture, 24-17,19
On human vs. non-human data, 22-19,20;  25-11
On proof, 18-18
On sufficiency of evidence, 22-6;  25-11
Increase-factors for low-dose estimates, 23-9,10
Initial persons and risk-analysis, 12-1,5
Initial persons not on RERF diskette, 7-1;  11-3
Instability of small numbers, 12-2;  14-4;  15-3,7
Interagency Rad'n Research & Policy, Alexander, 34-1
Interagency Rad'n Research & Policy, BEIR-5, 1-1
Interim estimates from ABS (Go88c, Go89a), 11-3
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 35-16
International Comm'n on Radiological Prot: see ICRP.
Interpolation, 14-1,7;  24-10;  25-8
Inter-stellar perspective, 24-14;  25-16
Inter-track phenomena & carcinogenesis, 19-6,7,8
Intra-track phenomena & carcinogenesis, 19-6,7,8
Single-track action, 19-8;  24-12
"In-the-box"*, 12-3;  13-5;  Ta13-B
In-utero A-bomb series, 21-5,6
In-utero dose-response, Nrc89, 22-10
In-utero studies, several, 21-Pt 1;  34-6
In vitro = "in glass" (laboratory work).
Iodine-131, slow dose-rate, 22-16
```

o -- "What is research, but a blind date with
knowledge." -- Will Henry

J
```Jablon 1963 and 1965, 5-3
Jablon 1971, 5-4
Jablon 1972, 4-1;  5-4
Jablon 1980, 34-3
James 1988, 35-14
Johannessen 1985, 20-3
Johns Hopkins University (Wagner), 34-6
Journal Of The American Med. Assn. (Loken), 34-4
Journal Of The American Med. Assn. (Rennie), 24-3
J-shaped dose-response, 35-21
```
o   ==================================
```Kato 1980, 4-1
Kato 1982, 4-1;  5-5;  8-5
Kato 1987, 8-5;  35-20
Kaul 1987, 31-1
Kellerer 1987, 18-3,4;  19-1,6
Kellerer 1988, 22-25
Kellerer as a leading figure in microdos'y, 19-6
Kennedy 1978, 23-8,9
KERMA = Kinetic energy released in material.
Kerma -- plain, FIA, shielded--*, 8-2
Kerr, George, of Oak Ridge Natl Lab, 5-3,4
Kerr 1979, Table 9-A
Kerr 1987a, 5-3,4
Kerr 1987b, 8-1;  32-1,3
Kerr 1988, 8-5,8,9;  13-4
KeV = kilo electron-volts.  Or, 1,000 eV.
Kinetic energy = energy of motion.
Kneale 1987, 21-5
Knox 1987, 21-5
Kondo 1975, 1984, 1985,  35-13,14
Kusunoki 1988, 35-20
K-value*, 15-1
All-cancer vs. site specific, 22-22
K-values, constant through time, 16-2;  17-4
K-value's relation with:
Age at exposure, 15-3,4
Cancer-Yield, 15-1;  16-3
Doubling dose, 22-22
Duration of effect, 15-7,8
Excess relative risk, 22-24
Percent increase per rad in spont. rate, 15-1
Slope of a straight line, 15-2
kVp = kilovolt, peak.
```

o -- "The larger the island of knowledge, the
longer the shore of wonder." -- Ralph Sockman

L
```L = Linear.  LQ = Linear-quadratic.*, 14-4; 23-1
Lancet and conflict-of-interest issue, 2-1
Lancet and hormesis, anonymous 1989, 35-2
Land 1979, 8-6
Land 1980, 22-3
Land 1980b, 35-20
Land 1984, 8-5
Land 1988, 21-13
Langley 1971, Table 29-D,E
Large intestine dose as approx'n of dose to all
cancer-sites, 8-3;  Ta9-A
Latency period, in diseased thyroid, 22-19,24
Law of minimum hypotheses, 21-5,19
Least possible disturbance*, 18-2,3,4;  19-1,2
21-Pt 1, 21-17;  34-6
Lee 1982, 21-3;  22-20
Lesher 1965, 35-5
LET = Linear Energy Transfer.
LET, rising along a single track, 19-2,3
Leukemia:
Accounts for 220 cases out of 6,270 total
malignancies in ABS, Ta26-A,B,C,D
"Data-rich" Registries disregarded, 22-3,6,9
"Except leukemia"*, 22-5
Why leukemia is excluded, 12-2;  36-4
Gofman and RERF risk coeffs, 24-5;  34-9;  36-4
Inducibility may be exaggerated because it
appears earlier, 8-7
Peaking 7.5 yrs post-irradiation, 22-19;  36-3,18
Small-numbers problem, 12-2;  22-3,9
Leukemia, various analyses:
Beir80 analysis of shape, 22-3,9
Beir90 (concave-upward), 25-9,11,12
Gofman86, Chernobyl-induced est., 24-5;  36-19
Evans86, 22-11
Loewe & Mendelsohn, 5-4
Unscear88 (suggests linearity), 25-9
Library analogy (for genetic information), 18-4
Liebhafsky 1960, 27(Part 2)-2
Lifespan lost by excess cancer, 12-1,3,4;  36-20
Lindell 1989, 24-20
Linear dose-response relationship:
In BEIR-3, 22-9,10
In BEIR-5,  25-9,10
In Unsc-88, 25-8,9,10
Not upper-limit of risk, 22-25;  34-6
"Pseudo-linearity" (modified LQ), 23-7
Linear Energy Transfer*, 19-2,3
Linearity* 13-4;  14-3;  15-2 (K = a constant)
Linos 1980, 21-11
Little 1981, 23-8,9
Liu 1987, 35-15
Liver cancer, 15-8
Livermore Lab, Anspaugh 34-2;  Gofman vii, viii;
Loewe & Mendelsohn 5-4
Lizzie Borden Methods of Database Management, 25-2
Lloyd 1980, 35-19
Lloyd 1988, 35-15,18,19,21
Loewe 1980, 5-4
Loewe 1981, 8-7
Loken 1987, 34-4
Longevity in irradiated animals, 34-7;  35-Pt 2
Lorenz 1955, 35-4,5
Loss of life expectancy, 36-20
Lotus123, Ta23-A;  29-1,3
Low-dose(*), 1-1
Low-dose exclusion-proposals: see Exclusion.
Low-dose human data lacking, allegedly, 13-4
According to Doe87, 22-12
According to Goldschmidt, 34-3
According to Loken, 34-4
According to Preston & Pierce, 22-13
According to Sagan, 35-15
According to Southwood (NRPB), 34-5
According to UNSCEAR 1986, 22-11
According to UNSCEAR 1988, 25-8
According to Wolfe86, 34-8
According to Yalow84, 34-9
Low-dose human data NOT lacking, 13-4,5,7;  18-7;
21-Pt 1;  22-25;  27-Pt 1;  34-4,6;  35-15
Lower limit, focus on it criticized, Foreword
Focus in Doe88, 24-12,13;  34-2
Focus in Ncrp85, 22-20
Focus in Un88, 22-20
Lowest conceivable dose, dose-rates, 18-2,4,9,16;
19-1,2;  20-6;  25-13;  34-6
Occupational dose-rates, 21-7;  35-16,18
Low-LET:  see LET.
LQ hypothesis of rad'n carcinogenesis, 23-1,4,5,6
LQ-L model*, 22-3
LQ model for dose-response*, 19-8;  23-1,5
LQ model: intra-track carcinogenesis dominates at
low doses, 19-8;  23-3,11, Figs23-B through 23-H
LQ (Q-positive) curve approx Dose^1.4, 29-2,3,4
LQ (Q-negative) curve, Fig23-H. See Negative Q-term.
LSS = Life Span Study of A-bomb survivors.
Luckey 1980, 34-4;  35-1
Luckey 1982, 35-1
Lung-cancer, Ankylosing Spondylitics 17-8; BEIR-5
25-5,6; tuberculosis patients 21-12: Un86 22-21;
Un88 25-9; Waka83 22-5
Lysenko and Soviet abuse of science, 35-11
```

o -- "It makes all the difference in the world
whether we put truth in the first place, or in the
second place." -- John Morley

M
```MacMahon 1962, 21-6,7
Magee 1987, 19-4,5
Maki 1968, 5-3
Male vs. female dose-response shape, 14-2
Martell 1989, 33-1
Martin 1970, 17-6
Massachusetts Inst. of Technology (Rasmussen), 34-4
Max Trax approach*, 18-10
Mayo Clinic (Linos Study), 21-11
McGregor 1977, 8-6
McTiernan 1984, 22-17
Medical X-rays: see X-rays, hazard.
"Meltdown" (of future K-values), 16-4
MIA = "Missing in Action."*, Ta5-B, 5-7;  8-3
Mice, and dose-response 23-8,9; and longevity
35-3,4 5; and thymidine kinase 35-5 T 9;
and tumor inoculation 35-14
Micro = one millionth part of.  Also: very small.
Microzone of reactivity*, 19-3
Miller 1989, 17-6;  21-4,5
Misdiagnosis of original cancer-site, 11-5;  12-2
Modan 1977, 21-2;  34-6
Modan 1989, 17-6;  21-2,3,9
Moghissi 1989, 24-15
Mole 1974, 21-6
Mole 1978, 8-6
Mole 1987, 17-9
Mole 1988, 21-6
Mole on threshold, 21-6
Monson 1984, 34-6
Moore, Felix (Natl Heart Inst), 5-1
Most important single carcinogen, 1-5;  3-1;
24-19,20;  25-15
Motivation for changing input (general), 5-2
Motivation for rushing into DS86, 5-7
"Mountain" of unsuitable data worse than none,
21-11;  25-11
mrem = millirem = 0.001 rem.
Myrden 1969, 21-1;  22-3
"Myth" of supposed propriety of DREFS, 22-7
"Myth with every shot,"  21-16|
```

o -- "My definition of a free society is a society
where it is safe to be unpopular." -- Adlai Stevenson

N
```Nanometer = one billionth of 1 meter;  10^-9 meter.
Naor 1987, 35-14
NAS = National Academy of Sciences (USA).
And retroactive changes of ABS,  5-7;  25-3
Handles BEIR Reports,  1-1;  25-3;  37-1
Handles DOE sponsorship of RERF,  1-1
National Academy of Sciences: see NAS.
National Cancer Institute (Upton), 34-5
National Council on Radiation Protection: see NCRP.
National Institutes of Health: see NIH and Nih.
30-1;  34-5;  35-18
National Research Council (of NAS), 1-1
Natural background dose, 21-13 T 16;  25-15;  34-8
NCRP = National Council on Radiation Protection.
Ncrp 1980, 14-6;  22-1,2,3,4,6,10;
23-1,2,3,4,5,8;  24-12;  25-12
Ncrp 1985, 22-16,20;  25-11
NCRP on raising neutron RBE 2-fold, 8-9
NCRP: supra-linear dose-response in A-Bomb Study
breast-cancer incidence, 14-6;  22-3
NCRP: supra-linear dose-response in combined
Hiroshima cancers, 22-3
"Needs of the RERF" (for perpetual changes), 5-7
Negative Q-term,  Fig13-C;  14-3,4;  22-3,5,9;
23-3,4;  Fig23-H;  29-2
Net benefit (hormetic hypothesis), 35-2
Net carcinogenic result, 18-2;  35-7,9,11,14,21
Net change in cohort-size, 1950-85, Ta5-B
Net change in dose with new dosimetry, 8-3;  13-4,
Net effect of regression analysis on Ca-Yield, 14-9
Net result of age-sex normalization, 11-2,3;  13-3
Net result of repair, 18-6,7
Neutron dose, error (ABS),  5-4;  8-3,6,7;  25-1
Neutron loss at Hiro filled by DS86 gamma, 8-3
Neutron dose, Hiro vs. Naga, 8-Pt 5;  Ta9-C & Ta10-E
Studies of Nagasaki only, 22-5,23
Neutron dose-response assumed linear, 8-8;  14-5
Neutron fraction of total dose ABS,  8-5,8;  Ta9-C;
Ta10-E;  14-5,6
New dosimetry, first mention, 1-1,2
New York Times 1982, 24-16
New York Times 1988, 25-13
New York Times 1989a, 25-13
New York Times 1989b, 24-2
New York Times 1989c, 24-3
"Next-to-zero" doses (threshold research), 21-19
N,gamma reaction*, Ta9-A
NIH = National Institutes of Health (USA).
Nih 1985, 13-6;  14-6;  18-6,9;  22-5,6,7;
23-4,5;  34-6,8,9
"No evidence below 50-100 rems": see Low-dose human.
Non-fatal cases excluded from this book, 12-2,3
Non-human data, pitfalls, 21-17;  23-6,8;  35-5,21
Beir90 comment, 25-11
Eternally inconclusive for humans, 25-16;  35-21
Holm comment, 22-20
Ncrp85 comment, 25-11
"No suggestion of upward curvature" (Beir80), 22-3
Not-in-City cohort, 5-3;  7-1
Not Proven in Peoria, 21-19;  22-6,10,11
NOVA 1988, 2-1
NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USA).
Nrc 1985, 14-6;  Ta16-C;  22-10,11;  34-4;  35-2
Nrc 1987, 24-5,6,11,12;  Table 24-A
Nrc 1989,  22-10
NRC and "below regulatory concern,"  24-19
and hormetic hypothesis, 34-3,4;  35-2
Nuclear medicine and Chernobyl, 24-15,16
Nuclear pollution, slow Chernobyl-equivalents, 25-17
See Exclusion of low doses from risk-benefit.
Nuclear power, Alexander comment 24-17;  34-1;
Gofman & Tamplin vii;  Wagner comment 34-7;
Yalow comment 34-9
Nuclear Regulatory Commission: see NRC entries.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Alexander), 3-2
Nucleus: diameter, 20-3,4
Effect on track-analysis, 33-7,8,9,10
NUREG = Nuclear Regulatory.
NUREG-1250 = Nrc 1987.
NUREG/CR-4214 = Nrc 1985.
Nurses exposed to ionizing rad'n, 3-2;  24-19
Nussbaum, Dr. Rudi, 22-25
```

o -- "We owe almost all our knowledge not to those
who have agreed, but to those who have differed."
-- Charles Caleb Colton

O
```O = Observed rate; rate in an exposed group.
Oak Ridge National Lab,  Fry 5-8;  Gofman vii;
Kerr 5-3,4;  Upton 34-5
Oberfield 1989, 15-8
Objectivity and curve-fitting, 23-9
Objectivity and refusal to generalize,  21-19
Obligatory,  14-8;  [15-1];  24-10;  25-13
Oblivion for unaltered study, 1-2;  5-8;  6-2;  25-3
Observed rate*, 17-2
"Observed" to mean AFTER normalization, 11-2,3
Occupational dose-rates, 21-7;  35-16,18
Occupational study-populations (limits), 21-11
Occupational exposures: see Exclusion of low doses.
Ockham's Razor (William Ockham), 18-16
Off-center tracks, 19-3
Office of Science & Technology Policy, 1-1;  34-1
"Official bodies" (Nih85), 23-4
"Official estimate" of risk (Webster87), 24-15
Okajima 1987, 8-4
Oldest age-band, final results by 1982, 15-4,7
Oldest age-bands accounting for 77% of cancers so
far, 12-4;  13-6,7
Olivieri 1984, 35-11
Orthovoltage X-rays*, 8-5
Orwell (George), 1-2
```
o   ==================================
```Paretzke 1987, 19-3,4;  20-2,3;  32-1,2
pCi = pico-curie.  There are 27 pCi per Bq.
Peer review, 2-2;  24-3
Holm Study 22-18,19;  Zufan Study 24-16
Peoria response, 21-19;  22-6,10,11
Percent increase per rad, 15-Pt 1;  16-2;  24-4
Perpetual revision of dosimetry, 5-2,7,8;  14-6,8
Personnel, bound to change in A-Bomb Study, 5-8
Person-year*, 12-4
Person-years & dose-response,  13-4;  14-2;  30-ALL
Photo-electric effect*, 20-2,3;  32-1
Photon = the quantum of electro-magnetic energy, a
discrete particle having zero mass and no charge.
Pico-second = 1 trillionth of 1 second;  10^-12 sec
Pierce 1987, 22-12,13
Pierce 1988, 5-7
Pierce: thanks for Tables 26-E thru 26-M, 7-1
"Pioneers" (DOE) in risk-assessment, 24-14,18
"Plowshare" Project (civilian nuclear bombs), vii
Pohl-Ruling 1983, 35-15,17
Poisson equation, first mention, 18-10
Equation itself, 20-5
Posture (ATB), 5-7
Predicted = calculated = estimated, 14-1;  29-3
Pre-judgments in research (examples):
In Beir80 (supra-linearity), 22-3,9;  Fig23-H
In Beir90 (supra-linearity), 25-5
In Holm88 (latency), 22-19
In Ncrp80 ("leveling off"), 23-4
In Nih85 (cell inactivation), 23-4,5
Preston 1985, 5-6
Preston 1986, 7-1;  9-1;  12-2;  13-4;  14-2;
25-9;  Ta27-A;  30-1
Preston 1987a (TR 1-86 abbr.), 4-1;  5-6;  7-1
9-1;  11-1;  25-9
Preston 1987b (TR-9-87), 5-7;  Ta5-B;  8-2,3,7;
Ta9-A;  11-3;  (TR-9-87), 12-1,2;  13-5,6;
14-2,7;  16-2;  22-13,14
Preston 1988 (TR-9-87, abbr.), 4-1;  12-1;  24-11;
Ta24-B
Preston-Martin 1987, 22-16,17
Preston, R.J. 1973, 23-8
Preston, R.J. 1980, 18-5
Presumption (of X) when there is no basis OTHER
than X in evidence, 13-5;  Ta16-A, Note 7;  28-1
Prevention of cancer: see Cancer prevention.
"Private" LSS study (ABS), 5-6
"Project Plowshare" (civilian nuclear bombs), vii
Promotional agents of cancer, 19-8;  22-19
Proof, provisional in medical sciences, 21-17,19
Proposal for CC-DD reporting: see Constant-cohort.
Prospective studies, meaningful standards, 5-1,2
"Pseudo-linear" dose-response*, 23-7
Public Health Service 1980, 3-1
Public health: see Cancer prevention; see Heritable.
PYR = Person-years.
```

o -- "To get maximum attention, it's hard to beat a
good, big mistake!" -- Unknown

Q
```Q = quadratic dose-term, 14-3,4
Q = Quality factor, 8-9;  Dose-Unit table, Index-12
Q.E.D. = quod erat demonstrandum ("which was to be
proved"),  25-7
Questionable practices: see Scientifically quest'b.
"Quicksand" (ABS foundation in peril), 25-1
```
o   ==================================
```Rad*, 20-1,2
Radiation And Human Health, written in 1980, 8-6
Radiation Effects Research Foundation: see RERF.
And hormetic hypothesis, 35-throughout
"Learn all we can from it,"  22-25
Pitfall, cell-studies, 21-17;  23-8,9;  35-9,21
Pitfall, non-human data, 21-17;  25-11;  35-21
Reality-check by epidemiology: see Reality-check.
Radio-iodine (diagnostic), Holm Study, 22-Pt 5
Radium dial (gamma exposure), 21-7;  24-19
Radium Luminizer Survey, 18-8, 18-Pt 6;  21-7,8
Random action of tracks, 18-16;  19-1,2
Random differences in sampling, 12-5;  13-3;  15-3,7
Random fluctuations of small numbers, 11-2
"Random ionizations,"  1-4;  24-12;  34-1,2
"Range of high-speed electrons, Ta20-FG;  33-ALL
Rasmussen 1974 and 1989, 34-4
"Rasmussen Report" (1974), 34-4
Raw A-bomb data, used in Go88c, Go89a, 11-3
Raw A-bomb data, used sometimes, 17-ALL;  Ta28-A
Raw data, control of, 2-1
Ray 1986 and 1987, 34-4,5
RBE*, 8-5; also Dose-Unit table, end of Index
RBE = Relative Biological Effectiveness.
RBE = 100 if use RBE 10 w. T65DR neutron error, 8-7
RBE and density of energy-depositions, 20-5
RBE for neutrons arbitrary, 8-9
RBE for neutrons not learnable from ABS, 8-7
RBE: higher values reduce Cancer-Yield, 8-9
RBE on route to infinity, 8-8
data, 8-9;  14-5,8;  18-2;  21-17;  22-2,7,25;
23-9;  25-11;  35-16,21
"Record shows" (what was known, when), 22-3,4,9,25
Reduction-factors*, 22-1;  see DREF.
Reductions in estimated risk by our data-handling:
Choice of higher body transmission-factor,  Ta9-A
Choice of neutron RBE 20 instead of 10,  8-9
Linear approx'n from zero to 5 cSv,  14-7
Normalization for age-sex,  13-3
Regression analysis, net effect on Ca-Yield, 14-9
Ultimate spont. ca-rate 14% not 20%,  13-6;  16-4
Redundancy of carcinogenic lesions,  23-5,6
Reference group, A-Bomb Study = Dose-Groups 1+2.
8-5;  9-1;  11-2
Reference group, all its cancers spontaneous, 28-1
Regression analysis, Chapter 29.
First mentions,  Table 13-B Note 5;  14-1
Reliability of datapoints, 29-2
Reinforcement, one study by another, 21-5,10 and
21-18 T 20
Relative Biological Effectiveness: see RBE.
Relative risk model supported by A-Bomb Study, 17-4
Rennie 1986 and 1988, 24-3
Repair of injured genetic molecules, 18-Parts 2,3,4
Activation of, 18-4,15;  23-6;  34-4;  35-10,18
Excision-type repair, 18-3
Key to threshold issue, 18-ALL
Not reducing per-rad risk as dose falls, 18-6,7;
21-19,20
Repair may provide threshold, according to:
Evans86, 34-3
Hickey81, 34-3,4
Lorenz, 35-4
Southwood87, 34-5
RERF = Radiation Effects Research Foundation.
RERF*, 1-1
Decision pending on our proposal, 5-9,10;  6-1,2
Note of appreciation for, 7-1,2
On Cancer-Yield, 24-11, Table 24-B
On constant K-values, 16-2
On duration of radiation effect, 13-5
On shape of dose-response, 14-3,4;  24-11
Publications: see TR entries.
"Useful" risk-estimates, 14-4
Risk estimates: see Cancer-Yields; see K-values.
Risk increase-factors, 22-13;  23-9,10
Risk reduction-factors (for low & slow): see DREF.
Risk-ratio = exposed / Ref,*, 13-5,6
Risk-ratio, constant through time,
13-5;  17-4,9;  28-1
Roesch 1968,  8-2
Roesch 1987,  5-5,7;  8-2,3
Roesch as editor of DS86 book (Roes87),  8-2
Ron 1987, 22-16,17
Ron 1988, 17-7
Rossi 1984, 33-7,8,9
Rossi, Harald (in Beir 1980), 22-4,5
Rounding artifacts, Ta9-B;  Ta9-C;  Ta11-A
Rounding practices at RERF, 5-5, Ta5-B
RR = Relative Risk.  Or Observed/Expected.
R-Squared as corr coeff*, 29-1,4;  Ta29-B,D
R-Squared, excellent values, 15-4
Running out of people, 15-8
Runyon 1985, 27 (Part2)-1
Rush to introduce DS86, 5-7
Rust 1966, 35-5
```

o -- "In nature, there are neither rewards nor
punishments -- there are consequences." -- Robert
G. Ingersoll

S
```Sacher 1964, 35-4
Safe dose*, 18-1
Sagan 1987, 35-3,15
Sagan 1989, 21-15;  35-2,3,5,8,9,12,13,14,15
Sagan as EPRI representative, 35-2
Sagan on hormesis, 35-throughout
Sagan on "tiresome debate",  35-15
Sampling variation*, 12-5;  13-3;  14-4;  15-7
Random fluctuations of small numbers, 11-2
Taking wiggles seriously, 17-3;  25-8;  35-20
Working in either direct'n, 16-4;  25-17
Sasaki 1968, 35-17
Scavenger*, 19-5
Science (journal) and DOE, 24-7;  25-13;  34-2
Science (journal) and EPRI, 35-2
Science: revealing phenomena when direct
observation impossible, 18-18
Scientifically questionable practices:
Excessive subdividing of data: see Excessive.
Partial reporting of follow-up data, 22-16,17,19
Replacing human evidence by preferred hypothesis,
22-ALL;  25-7,11,12,13
Replacing input, A-Bomb Study, 5-ALL;  25-Pt 1
Replacing input, Ank. Spondylitis Study, 7-13
Ruling out certain results by constraints, 22-3,9
Substituting one curve for another, 22-9
Throwing out dose-commitment (Chernobyl), 24-6,8
Throwing out Dose-Groups, 14-4;  24-11;  25-5
Throwing out follow-up yrs, 14-3;  22-18,19; 25-5
Unblinded review of diagnoses, 24-16
Unequal checking of input (high doses), 36-19
Embrace.  Inconsistency.  Lower limit (focus on).
Not Proven in Peoria.  Pre-judgments.
Site-specific analyses.
Self-censoring experts, 2-1
Self-publishing, 2-2
Semi-prudent estimates,  Foreword-2;  25-17
Shigematsu's letter, 5-10,11
Shimizu 1987, Ta5-B;  7-2;  Ta9-A;  Ta10-A,B,C;
14-3,4,6;  25-4;  26-1, Ta26-N,O
Shimizu 1988, 5-8;  8-7;  11-3;  12-2;  13-5,6;
14-3,4,6,7; 16-2;  17-2,3;  22-1;  24-8,10,11;
Table 24-B;  25-4
Shore 1977, 21-18;  22-3
Shore 1980, 34-6
Shore 1984 and 1985, 17-7
Shore 1986, 17-7;  21-18
Shortened lifespan, irradiated animals, 34-7; 35-Pt 2
Sies 1985, 19-6
Sigmoid curve = a curve with a single
inflection-point dividing concave-upward and
concave-downward segments.
Signal-to-noise ratio*, 21-13
Significance: see Statistical.
Silverberg 1990, 21-14
Sinclair 1985, 13-4
Sinclair 1988, 8-7;  22-25
Sinclair of NCRP, 5-8
Single-site analysis: see Site-specific.
SIR = Standardized Incidence Ratio, 22-18
Site-specific analyses:
Beir90 analysis, 25-6
Data too thin, 4-2;  25-8;  35-20
K-values unstable, 21-10;  22-22
Leukemia, 12-2;  22-3,9;  25-11
Misdiagnosis problem, 11-4;  12-2;  25-5
Not done in this book, 11-4
Thin data invite errors, 12-2;  22-6;  35-20
Unscear, 22-11 (Un86);  25-8 (Un88)
Vs. all canc combined, 4-2;  12-2;  13-3; 22-6,22
Skin cancer, not often fatal,  12-3
"Sky is falling" (Alexander), 24-17
"Slippery dealing" in research (Rennie), 24-3
Slope*, 23-3.  [ Slope = KRo ], 15-2
Slope, in reduction-factors, 22-1;  23-3
Slow delivery of dose, 1-3;  13-4,7;  23-Pts 6+7;
25-10 T 13
Slowest conceivable dose-rate, 18-4;  20-6,7;  25-13
Small-numbers problem*, 4-2,  11-2;  12-2;  15-3
Comparison with a billion, 14-4;  15-7
From site-specific analyses, 12-2;  22-6;
25-8;  35-20
From subdividing Dose-Groups, 8-5;  35-20
From subdividing follow-up periods, 17-3
In high-dose data of A-Bomb Study,  11-2;
14-8;  22-13;  24-10
In hormetic speculations, 35-20,21
In youngest age-band ATB, 15-3,4
Overinterpreting "wiggles," 17-3;  35-20
Taking results seriously, 25-8;  35-20,21
Smoking, 17-8 (Spondylitics);  21-12 (Davis87)
Smoothing operation, 15-4
Society for Promotion of Cancer Research 1981, 13-6
Southwood 1987, 34-5
Soviet Union and genetic research (Lysenko), 35-11
Soviet Union and radiation research, 24-1,2,7,8,15
Species (other): see Mice; see Non-human data.
Specific-site analysis: see Site-specific.
Speculations, lacking symmetry, 35-9,12,13
Spengler 1983, 21-11,12
Sponsor who is disinterested, 5-8;  35-2,21
Spontaneous ca-mortality USA, 22% in 1986, 21-14
Spontaneous cancer-rates:
Affected by age, 12-4,5;  Ta17-B;  Ta28-A
Must be comparable in compared groups, 11-1;
21-14,17;  22-18,21
Tripling and more while Risk-Ratio (O/E)
remaining constant, 17-3,4;  28-1
"Spurious" finding possible (Darby 1987),  17-5
Standards of research,  Foreword-1;  6-2
Statistical "flukes,"  21-18
Statistically unstable, 15-3;  34-5
Statistical manipulations, 13-3
Statistical significance:
In ABS specifically, 13-2,4,5;  14-3,8;  25-9;
27-Pt 1;  29-4 & Tables 29-D,E;  Tables 30-D,E
Significance removable by excessive subdivision,
12-2;  22-11;  25-8;  35-20
Weight of evidence vs. exceptions, 18-7
Statistical strength ("power"), 13-1;  22-11
Steer 1973, 11-3
Stewart 1956, 1958, 1970, 21-5
Stochastic effects = effects whose probability (not
degree of severity) is related to dose.
Straight line, equation for, 15-2,5
Strominger 1958, 22-23
Structure of a database (part of input), 5-8;  6-1,2
Student's t test, 29-3,4;  Ta29-D (formula)
Subcohort, DS86* 5-7, Ta5-B;  10-2
Subdivision: see Dose-Groups 2 and 3; see Excessive.
Sub-linear*, 23-6,7
Substance vs. source of analyses, 2-2;  24-16
"Supernatural omniscience,"  22-19
Supra-linear*, Figure 13-C;  23-6
Supra-linear dose-response relationship:
Also called concave-downward, Figure 13-C;  23-7
Fit by dose-exponent below 1.0;  14-2,3;  29-2
Fit by LQ, Q-negative, Fig13-C;  Fig23-H;  29-2
Fit by LQ w. modifier and Q-positive, 23-Pt 4
Low-dose risk 2-fold above linear, 15-7;  25-13
Lower K-values at higher doses, 15-7;  Ta16-A
No risk-reduction for slow-low, 23-Pt 7;  25-7
Persistence, 5-6;  14-6,8;  23-9;  25-5,8,9; 30-1
Risk/rem is higher at low doses, Figure 13-C
Throughout dose-range, 13-4;  14-8;  23-6,8;
25-8,9
Supra-linear dose-response, various studies:
In 1950-74 ABS follow-up, 5-4
In 1950-78 ABS follow-up, 5-5
In 1950-82 ABS follow-up, 5-6, 13-4,7;  14-ALL;
29-ALL;  30-ALL;  25-8
In 1956-1985 ABS follow-up, 14-5;  22-1;  24-11;
25-5,9
In Hrubec's women, 21-12
In Lee's rats, 22-20
In Wolff's human chromosomes, 35-11, Fig35-A
Sztanyik 1978 (early entrants), 8-4
```

o -- "We cannot command nature except by
obeying her." -- Francis Bacon

T
```T = Through (as in pages 23-12 T 15)
T65 = Tentative 1965 Dosimetry.
T65D established in 1965, 5-3
T65DR = Tentative 1965 Dosimetry Revised* 1-1
T65D: TR-9-87 using it to mean T65DR, Ta5-B;  8-7
Taylor 1980, 34-5
Terzaghi 1976, 23-8,9
Thiessen, association with DOE, 7-2
Thiessen, thanks for Tables 26-N and 26-"O", 7-2
Thiessen: we expect MIA info from him, 10-2
Threshold idea*, 18-1
Threshold (safe dose or dose-rate):
Burden of proof, 25-16;  34-7
Exactitude in per-rad risk, 18-10;  22-22
Exactitude in tracks, 18-7;  33-6,7
Disproven, Chap.18 supported by 19,20,21,32,33
Imperfect repair as Achilles' Heel, 18-3
Key coupling of epidemiology w. track-analysis,
18-2,7;  21-1,10,19;  25-14;  34-6
Threshold (false) arranged for compound XYZ, 5-2
Threshold, various views (more in Chapter 34):
Alexander, 3-2;  24-19;  34-1
BEIR-3, 25-13;  34-2,3
BEIR-5, 25-14
DOE 1987 (Goldman), 24-12,13;  25-13;  34-2
Hickey, 21-14,15;  34-3,4
Mole, 21-6;
NRC 1985 (Gilbert), 34-3
NRPB (Southwood), 34-5
UNSCEAR 1986, 25-14;  34-5
UNSCEAR 1988, 21-17;  33-7
Upton, 18-6;  21-10;  34-5,6
"Yalow Model", 19-6
Throwing away cancers past age 75 in ABS,  25-5
Throwing away dose-commitment (Chernobyl), 24-15
Throwing away Dose-Groups, 14-4;  24-11;  25-5
Throwing away follow-up yrs, 14-3;  22-17,19;  25-5
Thyroid cancer, seldom fatal,  12-3;  24-9
Time Magazine 1989, 24-2
"Time will tell,"  14-5,6 final shape;  15-4 final
28-1 ultimate spontaneous rate, ABS
Tokunaga 1984, 8-5
TR = Technical Report (from RERF), 7-1
Track*, 19-1
Track-analysis = calculating number of primary
ionization tracks per cell-nucleus.
Tracks, ionization (earliest mentions), 18-2;  19-1
Lowest conceivable dose, 18-4;  19-1,2
Never fractional, 18-10;  19-1,2;  20-5
Off-center, 19-3
Their products as a single unit, 19-6
Trailing digits, discrepances, Table 11-A;  Index-1
Transformation of cells*, 23-8,9
Transmission-factors*, 8-2
Troublesome trio, 18-2,3,6,9,16;  21-2,9
TR sequenced by year (last two digits):
TR-24-68.  See Maki 1968.
TR-11-70.  See Beebe 1970 and Beebe 1971.
TR-10-71.  See Jablon 1971 and Jablon 1972.
TR-16-73.  See Steer 1973.
TR-1-77.   See Beebe 1977 and Beebe 1978.
TR-12-80.  See Kato 1980 and Kato 1982.
TR-1-86.   See Preston 1986 and Preston 1987a.
TR-9-87.   See Preston 1987b and Preston 1988.
TR-12-87.  See Shimizu 1987.
TR-5-88.   See Shimizu 1988.
Tuschl 1980, 35-12
Twins (in-utero study), 21-8,9
"Two to ten" DREF, 22-4,10,12,14;  25-10,11,12
```

o -- "For peace of mind, resign as general manager
of the universe." -- Larry Eisenberg

U
```"Ultimate reduction factor," 22-25
"Ultra-careful" on control-groups, 22-25
"Ultra-careful" on levels of proof, 18-18
"Ultra-low" Chernobyl estimates, 24-Part 9
Underascertainment of cancer-deaths, 11-3;  25-4
United Nations: see UNSCEAR.
United Nations Demographic Yearbook 1984, 13-6
University of California 1989, 24-3
"Unknowledge" in medical science, Foreword
UNSCEAR = United Nations Scientific Committee on
Unscear 1977,  22-1,7,8,11
Cancer-Yield of 1.0,  22-7,8;  24-9,15
Unscear 1982, 34-6,7
Unscear 1986, 14-6;  18-3;  21-2,3;  22-11,12,20;
25-14;  34-5
Unscear 1988, Fore-1,2;  1-2;  21-3,5,6,17,19;
22-14,15,16,19,25;  25-1 T 16;  33-7;  34-7
Cancer-Yield, 25-4,11
No dual-dosimetry, 25-2
No track-analysis, 21-17
On shape and DREFS, 22-14;  25-8,9
Upper limit of risk and linear model, 22-25;  24-14
Upton 1987, 18-6,9,10;  21-10;  34-5
Upton 1988, 18-5
Upton 1989, 21-13;  34-5,6
Upton, on threshold, 18-6;  21-10;  34-5,6
Upward convex*, 23-7
uR = micro-roentgen.  Roentgen approximates a rad.
"Useful" risk-estimates in RERF's opinion, 14-4
USSR: below.  Also see Soviet Union.
U.S.S.R 1986, 24-5,6
U.S.S.R 1987a, 24-7
U.S.S.R. 1987b (Ilyin 1987), 24-7
U.S.S.R. 1988 (Ilyin 1988), 24-7
Utero: see In-utero.
```
o   ==================================
```Veterans Admin'n and radiation claims, 24-17;  34-1
"Violent disassembly" of Chernobyl reactor, 24-7
Violin (lost in orchestra), 21-13
"Viral vandals,"  18-4
Virsik 1982, 18-4
Vitamins and hormetic hypothesis, 35-2
```

o -- "If the shepherds do not believe that wolves
exist, then some of the sheep are going to have a
bad time." -- David F. Horrobin

W
```Wagner 1989, 34-6,7
Wakabayashi 1983, 8-5;  22-4,5
Wall Street Journal 1987, 24-16
Wall Street Journal 1989, 24-2
Watkins, James (Secretary of DOE), 24-14,15
Watkins 1989a, 1989b, 24-14
Webster 1981, 34-4
Webster 1982, 34-7
Webster 1987, 21-15;  22-16;  24-2,15,16,17;  34-4,7
Webster, on Chernobyl 24-15,17;
on hormesis 34-7;  on shape 22-4
Weight of the evidence, 18-7;  21-11,16,17,18
Weighted average (calc'n), Table 9-C Note 5;  Ta11-H
Weighting of datapoints for regression input, 29-2
Welcome or unwelcome results, 21-19;  22-19
"Whistleblowers" at DOE, 24-14
White House Office, Sci & Tech Policy, 1-1;  34-1
Whole-Body Cancer-Dose*, 24-5;  36-3
Whole-body doses never uniform from external
source, 9-1;  Ta9-A
Wiencke 1986, 35-10
Wolfe 1986, 24-9;  34-8
Wolff 1984, 35-11
Wolff 1988, 35-9
Wolff 1989, 24-16;  35-1,2,9,10,11
Woolson 1987, 5-5
```
o   ==================================
```X-rays, as photons, 19-3;  32-1
X-rays, diagnostic, 3-1,2;  8-5
X-rays, diagnostic, and colon cancer, 17-5
X-rays, diagnostic, needless overdosing, 3-1;  34-7
X-rays, hazard underestimated by A-bomb, 3-1;
X-rays, higher RBE than higher-energy gammas,
13-4;,  20-5 (Item M)
Yalow 1980, 1981, 1982, 34-8
Yalow 1983 and 1984, 34-9
Yalow 1988, 25-15;  34-9
Yalow 1989, 19-6;  22-16;  34-9
Yalow, on hormesis 34-9; on threshold 19-6
Yield uncertain of Hiroshima bomb, 5-7;  8-4
Yoshimoto 1988, 21-6
Younger are more sensitive: see Age sensitivity.
Zero risk model (DOE), 1-4;  24-12,13;  25-13
Zufan 1986, 24-16
```

[ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | XYZ ]

The occurrence of major radioactivity releases from the Chernobyl accident has made the use of the (S.I.) Becquerel unit somewhat awkward. The release of 2 million Curies ( 2 megacuries ) of 137-Cs is the same release as 2 x 3.7 x 10^10 x 10^6, or 7.4 x 10^16 Becquerels. The reader will encounter units such as the peta-Becquerel, which is 10^15 Becquerels. Therefore there are 74 peta-Becquerels per 2 megacuries of 137-Cs. Some of the additional units used with Becquerels are as follows:

```
1 exa-Becquerel = 10^18 Becquerels;    1 peta-Becquerel = 10^15 Becquerels;
1 tera-Becquerel = 10^12 Becquerels;    1 giga-Becquerel = 10^9 Becquerels;
1 mega-Becquerel = 10^6 Becquerels ;    1 kilo-Becquerel = 10^3 Becquerels.

```

For many years and with limited success, journals have been trying to replace rads and rems by the International System of Units (SI Units) -- which are Grays and Sieverts.

There is 1 centi-gray (cGy) per 1 rad. There is 1 centi-sievert (cSv) per 1 rem.

WE USE THIS ONE-FOR-ONE EQUIVALENCE, and intentionally avoid Grays (Gy),
milligrays (mGy), Sieverts (Sv) and millisieverts (mSv) in our own writing.

```
1     Gy .......... per 100 rads         1     Sv .......... per 100 rems
1    cGy ********** per   1 rad          1    cSv ********** per   1 rem
0.01  Gy .......... per   1 rad          0.01  Sv .......... per   1 rem
10    mGy .......... per   1 rad         10    mSv .......... per   1 rem
1    mGy .......... per 100 millirads    1    mSv .......... per 100 millirems

```

Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) is a factor expressing the relative biological potency of one radiation compared with some standard low-LET radiation (usually orthovoltage X-rays). If a dose of neutrons, for instance, produces radiogenic cancer equal to the impact from a ten-fold higher dose of X-rays, neutrons are more potent by a factor of 10, and their RBE for carcinogenesis is 10. In radiation protection, RBE is usually called Quality factor, or Q. Thus dose in centi-grays times Q = dose-equivalent in centi-sieverts. Thus dose in rads times Q = dose-equivalent in rems.

When doses are expressed in centi-sieverts instead of centi-grays, or in rems instead of rads, it is a signal that the adjustment for different RBE has already been incorporated. Thus a dose already in rems (or cSv) is directly comparable with a dose in rads (or cGy). Readers will see a conversion from centi-grays to centi-sieverts performed in our Tables 9-C and 10-E.

ToC | Prev
back to RIC | CNR | radiation | rat haus | Index | Search