Comparing RBE to relative penetrating power?

AI Thread Summary
Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) measures the biological damage caused by different types of radiation, with alpha particles having the highest RBE despite their low penetrating power. This discrepancy arises because RBE does not consider the source of radiation, particularly whether it is external or internal. Alpha radiation, while highly damaging at close range, cannot penetrate the skin, limiting its overall harm to humans compared to other radiation types. The discussion highlights that RBE is a measure of damage per kilogram of tissue, not a direct indicator of overall harm. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for evaluating radiation risks.
Eve Litman
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Relative biological effectiveness is a factor that radiation dose is multiplied by to account for differences in biological damage by varying types of radiation. RBE is higher for alpha particles than any other, yet the relative penetrating power of alpha radiation is the smallest of the four types of radiation, and alpha radiation is not the most harmful to humans. Why doesn't RBE correspond to how harmful a type of radiation is?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Eve Litman said:
Relative biological effectiveness is a factor that radiation dose is multiplied by to account for differences in biological damage by varying types of radiation. RBE is higher for alpha particles than any other, yet the relative penetrating power of alpha radiation is the smallest of the four types of radiation, and alpha radiation is not the most harmful to humans. Why doesn't RBE correspond to how harmful a type of radiation is?

Because it doesn't know how or where the radiation comes from. Your scenario always assumes that it is coming from outside the body, and thus, have to penetrate through the skin. The RBE doesn't account for that. All it does is for 1 kg of tissue, how much damage does each of those cause when compared to the damage done by x-ray.

Zz.
 
Thank you!
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'

Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'

Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Can alpha radiation make other materials radioactive?
Replies
6
Views
3K
Background radiation sources question
Replies
4
Views
2K
Medical Using Far-UVC Light To Kill Airborne Human Coronaviruses
Replies
33
Views
7K
Atomic displacements, replacements, and radiation damage of structural materials
Replies
1
Views
767
A Kinnersley’s “photon rocket” and gravitational radiation
Replies
14
Views
2K
I Unruh Radiation and Black Holes
Replies
10
Views
2K
Collision of alpha with Be -> C + gamma
Replies
1
Views
2K
A Historical clarification of the Planck formula of blackbody radiation
Replies
3
Views
2K
Medical Which Form of Radiation is Most Damaging to Human Cells: Alpha, Beta, or Gamma?
Replies
11
Views
6K
B Few questions about radioactivity/radiation
Replies
10
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top