The energy deposition in the nucleus of cells exposed to the 10B(n, alpha)7Li neutron capture reaction has been calculated and compared to the measured biological effect of this reaction. It was found that a considerable distribution of hit sizes to the nucleus occurs. The comparison of hit size frequency with the observed survival indicates that not every hit, independent of its size, can lead to cell death. This implies the existence of a hit size effectiveness function. The analysis shows that the location of boron relative to the radiation-sensitive volume of the cell is of great importance and that average dose values alone are of limited use for predicting the biological effect of this reaction. Boron accumulating in the cell nucleus is much more efficient in cell killing than the same amount of boron uniformly distributed; its presence in one cell, however, has little effect on its neighboring cells in a tissue. When boron is present on the cell surface of a tissue (as presumably delivered by antibodies), its cell-killing effect is greatly reduced compared to that in uniform distribution. However, in this case much of the dose to one cell comes from neutron capture reactions occurring on the surface of its neighbor cells. These data have implications for the choice of boron carries in neutron capture therapy. The mathematical analysis carried out here is similar to that proposed recently for low-level exposure effects of radiation, taking mutation and/or carcinogenesis as biological effects. The results here show that high-level exposure to high-LET particles (resulting in cell killing) should be treated in an analogous manner.

No abstract

and Rutgers Law students Brian Blaho and Briana Perry. A shorter version of this Article appears as Chapter Six in JUSTICE AND NATURAL RESOURCES: CONCEiPrs, STRATEGIES, AND APPLICATIONS (Katherine M. Mutz et al. eds., 2002). 'CBEP is the culmination of recent efforts by EPA that emphasize coordination among different levels of governmental decision-makers and enhanced public participation. See OFFICE OF POLICY & OFnCE OF REINVENTION, EPA, EPA-237-K-99-001, EPA's FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 3 (1999), available at http:/I www.epa.gov/ecocomrnunity/frame40.pdf [hereinafter CBEP FRAMEWORK]. 2 For example, the U.S. Forest Service has a "collaborative stewardship task force" that is actively searching for ways to promote a greater role for local collaborative efforts, an action that is consistent with the recommendations of the Committee of Scientists. See generally COMMITTEE OF SCIENTISTS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SUSTAINING THE PEOPLE'S LANDS: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STEWARDSHIP OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS AND GRASSLANDS INTO THE NEXT CENTURY (1999), available at http://www.fs.fed.us/ news/science [hereinafter SUSTAINING THE PEOPLE'S LANDS]. Collaboration is also a key element of modern efforts to implement the Endangered Species Act, through tools such as habitat conservation plans and safe harbor agreements. See, e.g., Endangered Species Act of 1973 § 4(a)(3)(A), 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(3)(A) (1994). In the past decade, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has created a series of resource advisory councils ("RACs") to provide local input into policy decisions. Other national policy entities, such as the National Performance Review and the Council on Environmental Quality, have also promoted collaborative problem-solving.

In this

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract