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


View Comment

Submitted by Will Standring, NRPA
   Commenting on behalf of the organisation
Document Health risks attributable to radiation
Both reviewers from the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority are agreed that, all in all, this is a very well written report containing interesting and contemporary information regarding health risks attributable to ionising radiation. However, we would like to suggest some minor changes/ clarifications that we believe will help the reader’s understanding of this report.

• The reviewers miss the inclusion of an up-to-date glossary in this report. A glossary containing concise definitions of the different terminology used in the report would be of great benefit to the reader.
• Page 27, lines 1114-1126: This paragraph contains important information and could be written more clearly. “Effective maximum RBE” could also be an ideal candidate for definition and explanation in a glossary section, as is the term “occult hypersensitivity” (line 1121).
• The reviewers would like to see an improved explanation of the term “estimates of selection coefficients (s)” on lines 2606-2607.
• The use of the symbol “.” in place of “×” in representations of numbers e.g. line 3330 “(= 0.13.10-2 to 0.25.10-2.Gy-1; average: 0.19.10-2.Gy-1);” might be confusing for the reader. This use of the symbol “.” appears in several places in the report.