Register for Updates | Search | Contacts | Site Map | Member Login


View Comment

Submitted by Keiji ODA, Japan Health Physics Society, Committee of International Issues
   Commenting on behalf of the organisation
Document The scope of radiological protection
1. Importance of the draft
This document, clarifying the concept of gexclusionh and gexemptionh, and classifying the scope of radiological protection in detail, is very important as one of building blocks for new recommendation. In particular, we appreciate that some concepts and terminologies, subject to misunderstanding, are explained carefully. We expect full consistency with new recommendation.

2. Reports from other organization
It should be highly evaluated that this draft deals properly with relevant reports from other organizations such as IAEA, WHO and so on.

3. Classification
Both in this draft and new recommendation, a variety of protection cases are classified by two major viewpoints, i.e. the exposure situations (prospective, existing and emergency) and the individuals (occupational, medical and public). The number of the cases is doubled by introducing natural and artificial radiations. All the cases of 3x3x2, however, are not realistic. We recommend tabulating of possible situations as a matrix.

4. Exemption in intervention situation
New concept proposed in section 5.5 is still arguable; a few comprehensive examples should be introduced.

5. Figures
There are four figures used for explaining the concept of exemption. We think all of them should be made improvements to be more accurate and comprehensive; for example, finer lines and arrows may be replaces by broken lines, and the scale of the ordinate may be adjusted to be close to absolute values of 10 mSv or 1 mSv.
In Fig.2, the meaning of a broken line for gclearanceh is not explained in the text.

6. Use of Latin phrases
We recognize that the Commission intends ICRP publications to be read in all countries of the world. Too frequent usage of Latin phrases prevents nonnative English readers from understanding. We ask the Commission to revise these expressions to be simple English, as a common language.

7. Spell out of NORM
Footnote 28 states that gnatural occurring radioactive materialh should be used. But, the expression of gnaturally occurring radioactive materialh is often seen in the rest of the text.

8. Typing errors
In (para.50), Ther (para.67), thise (para.140).