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

news

View Comment

Submitted by Daniele Giuffrida, Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation, UAE
   Commenting as an individual
Document Operational Quantities for External Radiation Exposure
 
line 218: "have included the study OF the values" instead of "have included the study the values"
 
line 264: " for guiding quantitatively the optimization principles" is an incorrect statement. It is not the quantitative guide to the principle which is provided for with the use of protection quantities, but the "operational implementation of the optimization principle" itself. Is the use of the plural indicating a special meaning? (which then should be clarified?)
 
line 295: "assist" instead of "assists"
 
line 296, within the table "Operational Quantities": the use of the new quantities "Personal dose equivalent" instead of "personal dose"; "Personal dose equivalent to the lens of the eye" instead of "personal absorbed dose to the lens of the eye"; "Personal dose equivalent to local skin" instead of "personal absorbed dose to the lens of the eye" should be explicitly introduced, as they have not been defined yet in the document. Maybe a caption as "Figure 1: Scheme of relationship between quantities, also showing proposed new Operational Quantities".
 
line 297: A space is missing between "Figure" and "1". Moreover, maybe "relationships between quantities" would be clearer than "relationships of quantities"?
 
line 309: what is the reason to specify that the use of operational quantities is limited to doses below dose constraints or investigation levels? dose constraints are much below than 100 mSv, and this sentence would erroneously suggest that the dose range between dose constraints and 100 mSv would not be covered by operational quantities
 
line 477: to avoid confusion, "apply to the absorbed dose" should be replaced with "apply to the equivalent dose", as specific annual dose limits for skin and extremities are currently given in terms of equivalent doses (in mSv) and not -yet- of absorbed doses (in Gy)
 
Chapter 3.3: should a mention be made of the absence of a definition for "equivalent dose" and of the new approach proposed in the document? 
 
line 517: a space is needed between "coefficient" and "d'lens"
 
footnote 1 under line 585: a space is needed between "body" and "is", between "components" and "theta", from "theta" and "being", between "theta" and "pointing", and between "phi" and "pointing"
 
footnote 2 under line 607: several minor mistakes, similarly to the previous footnote. Check the content between [].
 
footnote 3 under line 629: several minor mistakes, similarly to the previous footnotes.
 
line 657: a space is missing between "1" and "GeV" (repeated twice)
 
lines 660 and 661: between "and" and "taken": unclear, something is missing
 
line 662: for consistency with subsequent lines (e.g. 671, 679), "steps" is missing after "15 degrees"
 
lines 689 and 690: not very clear, maybe could be reformulated as "(...) gives conversion coefficients from fluence and kerma to the maximum value of the absorbed dose (...)"
 
APPENDIX A: All Figures, from A.1.1a to A.1.10, report on Y axis "hEmax" instead of "h*Emax"
 
APPENDIX A: line 668: neutrons' table and figure A.3.2 are missing  
 
APPENDIX A, line 727: remove "-" after ":"
 
APPENDIX A: line 1003: neutrons' table and figure A.4.2.1 are missing  
 
APPENDIX A: Figures A.5.1a and A.5.1b report on Y axis "hEmax" instead of "h*Emax"
 
APPENDIX B, line 1921: a ". " is missing after the ")"
 
APPENDIX B, line 1940: check the wording.
 
APPENDIX B, line 1957: a space is missing after 10 and after "."
 
APPENDIX B, line 1958: a space is missing after 1
 
APPENDIX B, line 1967: a space is missing after 10
 
APPENDIX B, line 1968: a space is missing after 110
 
APPENDIX B, line 1969: a space is missing after 1
 
APPENDIX C,  line 2033: neutrons' table and figure C.1.2 are missing
 
APPENDIX C,  line 2087: "are" should be deleted
 
APPENDIX C,  line 2096: could be simplified/clarified