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

news

View Comment

Submitted by Frits van Dorp, Radioactivity & Environment
   Commenting as an individual
Document Radiological Protection in Geological Disposal of Long-lived Solid Radioactive Waste
 

Comments by Frits van Dorp on


Annals of the ICRP Draft report for consultation


Radiological Protection in Geological Disposal of Long-Lived Solid Radioactive Waste


 


Line 227: When “the dose constraint of 0.3 mSv in a year is to be used for the sake of comparison of options … “some words on what would be acceptable performance of geological disposal would be useful.


 


Chapter 5.1: The Representative Person


There is much discussion on dose or risk criteria being of limited use, but what other criteria should be used? To be useful, such other criteria would in the end still have to be based on some kind of radiological protection criteria such as dose or risk.


 


Chapter 5.1: The Representative Person: Section (80 & 81):


The statements in these Sections are qualitative. Perhaps this is meant so. However, some quantitative indications on e.g. “highly exposed individuals in the population” might be useful. As prognoses are impossible, comparison with today could be made, such as: today an annual dose constraint of 0.3 mSv in a year would apply to a person at the 75 percentile of the dose distribution.


 


Section (83): If the lifetime dose (or risk) is the relevant measuring stick, why do doses to an infant, child and adult have to be calculated? Are uncertainties not larger than the differences between the age groups?