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

news

View Comment

Submitted by Bruce Heinmiller, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
   Commenting as an individual
Document Dosimetric quantities
 
Page 35; Equation 5.4:
There are a few difficulties with this equation. The left-hand side should not be given as E. Effective dose is defined elsewhere as a double-weighted sum of absorbed doses, and an estimate of E as defined in the equation cannot be called E, as this would result in more than one definition for the same quantity. Also, persoanl dose equivalent is not a true estimate of E for external exposures, as this would generally require the use of a conversion factor different from unity. Consequently, the equation would better describe a practical limiting quantity to be used as evidence of compliance with effective-dose limits. Also, the second term on the right-hand side should be designated as being applied only to non-radon-progeny nuclides. This is necessary to avoid having more than one definition for e(50) for inhalation, as exposure limitation for radon progeny is based on an epidemiological approach rather than a dosimetric one. The comments on the separate treatment of radon progeny also apply to Equation 5.8 on page 37.

Page 51; Activity:
Should read "the expectation value of ...".

Page 51; ALI:
"... and result in ... "... average annual dose limit ...".

Page 53; LET:
Is not specific to biological material.

Page 54; Radiation Quality:
Is not specific to biological effect.

Page 54; Radiation Weighting Factor:
"... factor used to derive ...". "... quality of radiation incident on the body for external radiaions, and ...".

Page 57; Table 4:
Qualify "protons" to exclude neutron-recoil.