|1. The title "The Scope of radiological protection regulations" is overly broad and promises the reader much more than they get. The document really deals with exclusion and exemption for the most part.
Perhaps the title should reflect that. As an example, there is nothing at all in the document about the scope of radiological protection regulations as they might relate to medicine and particularly the patient.
2. There are a few remaining inconsistencies for example about cosmic rays. In the executive summary para (i) first sentence it suggests that cosmic radiation ABOVE ground level is an obvious candidate for exemption. Yet when the reader really gets into the text in paras 85-88 it says that the ICRP in the past recommended including occupational exposure of crew etc (para 86) and then in para 88 it leaves the reader with no firm conclusion on the part of the ICRP but now appears to suggest exclusion or exemption for exposures above ground level. If the Commission is really backing off prior recommendations this should be clear and appear in the executive summary.
3. I quess I miss the bullets up front that would tell me what is new and different or new in this document without having to scour through the text. I actually cannot figure out if the Commissions position on radon is the same as before or changed
4. Para 12. Line 5 . Why does the text indicate that there might be an effect only "above the unavoidable background dose " ???
5. Reading the fine print in footnotes is always exciting. Small editorial change for footnote 15 line 2 should read "that there IS a good reason" or there "are good ReasonS."
6. Moore important in footnote 17 on individual limitation inidicates that "ALL of the relevant practices should be subject to DOSE LIMITS".
This needs to be modified as it does not apply to patient exposure.
Perhaps simply add "with the exception of medical exposure of patients"
7. It would be interesting to ask how the many Latin terms translate into Russian, Chinese etc.