Radiation weighting factors have long been employed to modify absorbed dose as part of the process of evaluating radiological impact to humans. Their use represents an acknowledgement of the fundamental difference in energy deposition patterns of charged and uncharged particles, and how this can translate into varying degrees of biological impact. Weighting factors used in human radiation protection are derived from a variety of endpoints taken from in-vitro experiments that include human and animal cell lines, as well as in-vivo experiments with animals. Nonetheless, the application of radiation weighting factors in the context of dose assessment of animals and plants is not without some controversy. Specifically, radiation protection of biota has largely focused on limiting deterministic effects, such as reduced reproductive fitness. Consequently, the application of conventional stochastic-based radiation weighting factors (when used for human protection) appears inappropriate. While based on research, radiation weighting factors represent the parsing of extensive laboratory studies on relative biological effectiveness. These studies demonstrate that the magnitude of a biological effect depends not just on dose, but also on other factors including the rate at which the dose is delivered, the type and energy of the radiation delivering the dose, and, most importantly, the endpoint under consideration. This article discusses the efforts taken to develop a logical, transparent, and defensible approach to establishing radiation weighting factors for use in assessing impact to non-human biota, and the challenges found in differentiating stochastic from deterministic impacts.
Relative Biological Effectiveness and Oxygen Enhancement Ratio of 50 Mv X-Rays
