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

ICRP: Free the Annals!

View Comment

Submitted by Peter Thompson, Individual
   Commenting as an individual
Document 2005 ICRP Recommendation
Thank you for givng me the opportunity to comment on the 2005 ICRP Recommendations.

Generally I agree with the receommendations, but did find the document staright forward to read as it has been aimed at too many different reader types and is thus confusing in places. In my personal opinion, it would have been better if an appriopriate target audience was selected and the document produced to suit this group.

I can not see the benefit in changing terminology, as change can cause confusion and people within the radiation protection community should already understand the current titles such as 'equivalent dose'.

The activity levels for exclusion appear to be too low and possibly not easily measurable.

I have difficulty in understanding the practical benefit of "dose constraints", when coupled with the confusion that they will cause to the clarity of radiation protection to non professionals. Theoretically it might be a good idea, but in working practice the potential confussion could be harmful to radiation protection.

I am pleased that optimisation of protection is so visible throughout the recommendations, but in the proposed recommendations optimisation appears to mean more than selecting the optimum solution. Thus if this is what we mean, and I think that it is ("grossly disproportionate"), maybe a different term would be more appropriate.

I have difficulty in accepting why the recomendations are supportive of the linear non-threshold (LNT) dose response, but then recommend a dose exclusion level. I appreciate that the risk at this sort of level is probably trivial, but stating a figure such as this undermines the faith in LNT dose response. I do not feel that this helps real radiation protection at the working level, as it sends out a confussed signal, unless appropriately explained. The LNT helps explain the basis for good radiation protection and we should not undermine this, unless the facts support a reassessment.

I am concerned that the protection of people and the optimisation of the radiation hazard to people will be undermined by purest environmental concerns. An appropriate balance needs to be reached that will not divert money unneccesatrily to reduce trivial environmental risks, whilst people in the work place might be put at undue risk.

Thank you again for givingh me the opportunity to comment on thsese recommendations, which I am generally supportive of.

Thank you
Peter Thompson