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


View Comment

Submitted by Irena Malatova, National Radiation Protection Institute
   Commenting as an individual
Document Interpretation of biossay data

The document is very interesting and brings new ideas. However, it is rather complicated and needs quite a lot of improvement. Because of short time, I am able to enclose only few remarks.

Chapter 2.4
Need for individual monitoring – it includes reactor operations. It makes rather false impression that e.g. reactor operator could be internally contaminated. It would be better to say that the it is “maintenance of reactor facilities”

Chapter 4.4
The title of the chapter is environmental monitoring, but the content of the chapter deals with monitoring of workplace by PAS; better title is Air sampling ( like in ICRP 78)
Generally, the chapter is too long.
As in the chapter 2.4 there are among operations , which are in need of individual monitoring, also exposures to radon and its decay products in mines. Personal dosimeters like ALGADE which measure also radon concentration have to be mentioned too.

Chapter 6.3
(ii) Critical monitoring quantity.
It is very useful to introduce such quantity, however, it is a question if the term “critical monitoring quantity” is appropriate Perhaps more suitable would be. “derived level for zero dose”.

Chapter 7.2 Levels of Task.
The introduced structured approach is very useful. When describing individual Levels, the column, following description of Level 3, has to be included into description of Level 0 ( the other Levels are described in longer way too).

In the table 7.12, there is used quantity T1/2 eff in the cases, when it is very difficult to speak about biological half – time, e.g. for uranium, americium etc. I am suggesting to delete it from the table