Skip Navigation


Radiation Protection Dosimetry Advance Access originally published online on February 3, 2005
Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2005 113(3):245-250; doi:10.1093/rpd/nch458
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
113/3/245    most recent
nch458v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kellerer, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Roos, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kellerer, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Roos, H.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Are all photon radiations similar in large absorbers?—a comparison of electron spectra

Albrecht M. Kellerer* and Hartmut Roos

Radiobiological Institute, University of Munich, Schillerstrasse 42, D-80336 Germany

* Corresponding author: AMK.SBI{at}LRZ.uni-muenchen.de

Received July 20, 2004, amended December 20, 2004, accepted January 2, 2005

Conventional X rays, i.e. X rays generating voltage between roughly 150 and 300 kV, are used in many radio-diagnostic procedures and also in radiobiological experiments. They release less energetic and, therefore, more densely ionising electrons than the high-energy gamma rays from 60Co or from the A bombs. Accordingly, they are considered to be somewhat more effective, especially at low doses. Various radiobiological studies, especially studies on chromosome aberrations have confirmed this assumption, but epidemiological investigations, e.g. the comparison of the excess relative risk for mammary cancer in the X-ray exposed patients and in the gamma-ray exposed A bomb survivors, have not demonstrated a similar difference. In view of the missing epidemiological evidence and largely for the reasons of practicality in radiation protection, the ICRP has recommended the radiation weighting factor unity equally for all photon radiations. However, in the discussion preceding the 2005 Recommendations of the ICRP, the issue remains controversial. In a recent paper, Harder et al. argue—with reference to an assessment by the German Radiation Protection Commission (SSK)—that the use of the same weighting factor for different photon energies can be justified more directly. For high-energy incident photons, they present the degraded photon spectra at different depths in a phantom, and they conclude that much of the difference between high-energy gamma rays and conventional X rays disappears in a large phantom. The present assessment, which is more direct, compares the spectra of electrons released (through pair production, Compton effect and photo effect) in a small and in a very large receptor for the incident photons of 150 keV, 1 MeV and 6 MeV. For the 1 Mev and 6 MeV photons, there is a substantial shift towards smaller electron energies in the large receptor, but the electron spectra remain much harder than those from the 150 keV incident photons. Furthermore, it is seen—in agreement with earlier conclusions by Straume—that for the broad gamma-ray spectrum from the A bombs there is no shift at all to lower energies within the body, but rather some degree of hardening of the radiation. The assumption that distinct differences between high-energy gamma rays and conventional X rays are restricted to small samples must, thus, be rejected. The attribution of the same effective quality factor or radiation weighting factor to all photon energies remains, therefore, an issue that is based on the considerations beyond dosimetry.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
E. Schmid, H. Roos, and H.-M. Kramer
The depth-dependence of the biological effectiveness of 60Co gamma rays in a large absorber determined by dicentric chromosomes in human lymphocytes
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, July 1, 2008; 130(4): 442 - 446.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
J. Chen, H. Roos, and A. M. Kellerer
Radiation quality of photons in small and large receptors--A microdosimetric analysis
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, June 1, 2006; 118(3): 238 - 242.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
D. Harder, N. Petoussi-Henss, D. Regulla, M. Zankl, and G. Dietze
Letter to the Editor
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2005; 117(4): 453 - 454.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
A. M. Kellerer and H. Roos
Response to Letter to the Editor
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2005; 117(4): 454 - 454.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.