|Years ago I commented extensively on the "Below Regulatory Concern" concept. If anything, that concept is even more discredited now. ICRP must recognize that there is no safe threshold dose for radiation!
The U.S. NRC's BEIR-V Report made that clear. The more recent work of John Goffman is even more telling. Please read and incorporate the findings of researchers who demonstrate the various kinds of biological damage radiation does. Please adopt a precautionary approach.
Both natural and, especially, human-made radioactive materials and wastes should be regulated. There is no scientific justification for excluding or exempting any such materials.
I do not want radioactive materials showing up in consumer products. I do not consider that to be a trivial risk. I do not want the presence of radioactivity to go unlabeled.
Please reduce the exposure limits for workers in the nuclear field, too. All humans (and the rest of the biota) deserve consideration. People come in different sizes, and people can be exposed from multiple sources, whose effects are additive and cumulative.
"ICRP" includes the word "protection" in its name. Protection should take precedence over economics. Erring on the side of safety should be your mantra!
To the extent that there are "beneficial actions giving rise to radiation exposure", they must not be given more importance than protection. ICRP's goal must be to protect persons, not industry!
thank you for the opportunity to comment.