# View Comment

| |||||||||||||||

AdultSAFDraftForPublicConsultation.pdf comments. I would like to make some comments on that part of the document I am more familiar with. Page number is according to the PDF and line numbers according to the left most columns. The line numbers alone should already give a unique number because they are continuous counting, but the page numbers are supplied for convenience. I am only commenting on a small part of report that is the most relevant to my work.
Page Line Comment 18 513 Should Ã 18 529 Should the integration time symbol not be τ instead of t? 18-9 531 Formula (2.4) and (2.5) define the new symbols h 19 544-546 “With the exception of the tissues addressed in Table 3, the tissues of Table 2 are represented by a single target region and thus for these tissues f(r 19 554 Table 3 defines the target region Lymphatic nodes WITH the ET and TH regions, where ICRP Publication 110 explicitly excludes them in Annex D Table D.1 on page 69. 20 559 The committed effective dose coefficient, e(τ), has the unit [Sv s] and it might be helpful to add for all the symbols defined in this document the units. 20 560 Analogy: Activity A, Committed activity Ã, Committed activity coefficient ã, so effective dose E, Committed effective dose ~E (~ should be above E), Committed effective dose coefficient ~e (~ should be above e). Why did the Commission choose for committed effective dose coefficient the symbol e without the ~ on top? 20 567 Line 539 has as unit part (Bq s) and there the same unit part is denoted (Bq-s). Please use one notation throughout the document. 20 571-578 All the symbol units, if any, are supplied, except for E 20 582 Equation 9 should be equation 2.9? 21 600 The symbol SAF(r 21 600 The reader has to guess that M 22 626 Is the word cuboid right? Or is rectangular cuboid better? 24 677 MIRD Pamphlet No. 5 (1978) is published after No. 11 (1975)? 24 685 Typo with self-irraidation for self-irradiation. 24 688-691 The sentence “Since the difference … while allowing for an improved SAF at low photon energies.” does imply two things. 1) The difference in organ mass between ICRP Publication 89 and 110 are small so the reference target mass can be used, whatever the photon energies are. 2) The SAF proportionality with the inverse cube root of the squared target mass (Snyder 1970) is approximated as proportional to the inverse target mass and this improves the SAF at low photon energies. For muscle (skeletal) (soft tissue) the Compton effect is dominating for and above 30 keV photon energy, so indeed low photon energies, up to about 30 MeV, where pair production start to be the dominant effect. On the higher end the photon energy is beyond the 10 MeV and that is about the maximum in this report and produced by radio-nuclides. The target masses vary with muscle 23 kg on the high end and gall bladder wall 0.010 kg on the low end. For photon energies in the range where the Snyder approximation holds it is assumed that: 1 = M |