Ethical Foundations of the System of Radiological Protection

Draft document: Ethical Foundations of the System of Radiological Protection
Submitted by Andrew Ho, UWA
Commenting as an individual

Line 388, page 13:
"one of the fundamental virtues of many religions and oral traditions"
The inclusion of a discussion of the nature of religion in an ICRP document is unnecessary and unhelpful. This clause in no helps to way improve radiological protection and rather acts to emphasise the article''s profound weaknesses.

Line 1088, page 30
"Citizens found themselves directly confronted with radioactivity in everyday life"
Every human has always ''found themselves confronted with radioactivity in everyday life''. This statement adds to further confuse and misinform the perhaps ''well-meaning and sincere''  but certainly ''rarely well-informed'' ''larger group of citizens''.

Lline 1109, page 31
"in situations where they must live with radiation"
See previous comment. All "stakeholders" have always "live(d) with radiation"

Paragraph C 5
This paragraph summarises the fundamental weakness of the document by making a clear statement in support of moral, religious and cultural relativism.

Paragraph C 16
The document further weakens its position by cherry picking excerpts from popular religious texts. The (well documented) large number and wide range of internal contradictions within each of these documents makes individual excerpts from them worse than useless. The document refers to the Parliament of Word''s Religions on 1993 as though views expressed by this parliament (or a representative) are generally shared by the adherents of the respective religions. No evidence is put forward to support this. 

The term "deterministic effects" is used several times throughout the document despite the ICRP''s preference for the term "tissue reactions". See Statement on Tissue Reactions, Approved by the Commission (ICRP) on April 21, 2011.