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

ICRP: Free the Annals!

View Comment

Submitted by Claudio Antonio Federico, Institute for Advanced Studies, Brazilian Air Force
   Commenting as an individual
Document Radiological Protection from Cosmic Radiation in Aviation
 

 


Congratulations to the task group and committee on the excellent work.
Only two aspects called my attention:
 
First: Is relatively common the situation when the aircrew needs to make connection flights as a passenger, due to scales or in return to their hometown, etc. In these cases, they are not at work, but it is clear that this situation was caused as a result of this duties. The draft does not clearly specify that the doses received by the aircrew in these situations should be included as occupational exposure. I think that this situation needs to be specifically considered and clearly specified as an occupational exposure in order to be included in the dose record.
 
Second: In some points of the document it is cited the need of a validation of the computational dose estimations by means of onboard equipments monitoring (lines 598 and 968, for example). I think that the document should emphasize more the need to take care about the necessary technical capabilities for this measurements and about the calibration and specifications of the measurement equipments, in order to avoid measurements with inadequate equipments or calibrations, which could lead to wrong conclusions. I understand this as a different situation than that related to measurement equipments designed to follow changes on dose rates, related to SPEs, which have the aim to give an alert in order to allow pilots to take the decision about flight levels.
 
In line 515: I suggest: ...neutron counts in the ground...
 





Congratulations to the committee on the excellent work.Only two aspects called my attention:
First: Is relatively common the situation when the aircrew needs to make connection flights as a passenger, due to scales or in return to their home town, etc. In these cases they are not at work, but it is clear that this situation was caused as a result of this duties. The draft do not clearly specify that the doses received by the aircrew in these situations should be included as occupational exposure. I think that this situation need to be specifically considered and clearly specified as an occupational exposure in order to be included in the dose record.
Second: In some points of the document it is cited the need of a validation of the computational dose estimatives by means of onboard equipments monitoring (lines 598 and 968, for example). I think that the document should emphasize the need to take care about the necessary technical capabilities for this measurements and about the calibration and specifications of the equipments, in order to avoid unexperienced people to make this measurements with inadequate equipments or calibrations, which could lead to wrong conclusions. I understand this as a different situation than that related to measurement equipments designed to follow changes on dose rates, related to SPEs, which have the aim to give an alert in order to allow pilots to take decision about flight levels.
In line 515: I suggest: ...neutron counts in the ground...