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

ICRP: Free the Annals!

View Comment

Submitted by Dr David M Smith, Defence Science & Technology Laboratory
   Commenting on behalf of the organisation
Document Recommendations
Issues of content and clarity

Section 2 ¡V
Text box page 15 ¡V the treatment of the topics of scope, exclusion and exemption are indeed clearer compared with the previous draft.
The removal of ¡§exclusion levels¡¨ from the Recommendations is welcomed ¡V there is no remaining potential conflict with other published exclusion levels (e.g. IAEA).
Section 5 ¡V
Par 157 line 4 ¡§¡K most workers who are exposed to radiation sources as part of their work are also exposed to radon at work, to controllable environmental sources including radon at home and to medical exposures.¡¨ This is quite a bold statement ¡V it would be more appropriate to add ¡§ ¡K.potentially exposed to radon at work,¡K.¡¨
Par 170 & 171. The statement in par 171 ¡§Other workers, such as administrative staff and support staff, are more similar to the general public and treated as such¡¨ (a) does not fit in well at the end of a par concerning workers in controlled areas ¡V if anywhere it should be in par 170 above, & (b) are workers in their own right ¡V they are employees and not members of the public. They cannot be treated as members of the public & have employment rights and duties which a member of the public cannot be expected to have.
Text box page 50 ¡V the present treatment of the topic of justification is clearer than in the 2005 draft.
Par 207 line 2 ¡V the use of the word ¡§incremental¡¨ in this sentence is not understood ¡V why is it required?
Par 217 ¡V why is ICRP prescribing values of dose constraint for public discharges, whereas it states in par 211 that dose constraints should be fixed at national or local level? Why are discharges a special case, or alternatively why doesn¡¦t ICRP prescribe constraints for other activities? This appears to be inconsistent. See also later comment on par. 301.
Par 219 ¡V the first sentence is very long (5 lines) and as such is not easy to understand. Suggest restructuring it.
Par 220 ¡V line 7 ¡V suggest replacing ¡§could¡¨ with ¡§should¡¨ ¡V stronger terminology justified.
Par 239 ¡V line 3 states that ¡§intakes may be averaged over a period of 5 years¡K¡¨. However par 128 states that ¡§committed dose is assigned to the year in which the intake occurred.¡¨ These appear to be conflicting statements. Should par 239 state that ¡§doses may be averaged over a period of 5 years¡¨? This would be consistent with the statement in Table 5.

Section 7
Par 293 ¡V line 3 ¡§..taking into account the feasibility of control and the perceived demands of those affected.¡¨ The phrase perceived demands is unhelpful ¡V who is perceiving? ¡V the rp practitioner, the regulator, another stakeholder? Would ¡§concerns¡¨ be a more appropriate word to use?
Par 295 ¡V why is this par. in the section on ¡§Exposure to natural sources¡¨ - surely it is making a recommendation which is applicable across the generality of radiation protection, not just natural sources?
Par 301 & Table 6 ¡V there is a statement earlier in par 211 that ¡§It will usually be appropriate for such dose constraints to be fixed at the national or local level. ¡§ Why then does ICRP feel that it is required to be prescriptive wrt stipulating a constraint for radon?
Par 301-303. If a constraint for radon is recommended expressed in terms of activity concentration, the calculation from the fundamental 10mSv constraint is made using assumptions about the degree of disequilibrium in the workplace (probably around 0.4 - 05). This will be far from the case in many underground workplaces especially if there is forced ventilation, where disequilibrium may be <0.1, and the constraint expressed in terms of activity concentration of radon will be far too pessimistic. Hence there should be a caveat to this effect.

Typographical etc errors

Page 3 1st par ¡V line 13. Delete ¡§-¡§ before ¡§Finally¡K¡¨
Par 86 ¡V line 7. Delete extra full stop.
Par 98 ¡V line 4. Delete extra comma after ¡§e.g.¡¨ and apostrophe after ¡§walled¡¨.
Par 112 ¡V line 7. Full stop missing from end of sentence.
Par 184 ¡V line 2. Insert space in ¡§dosethat¡¨ to read ¡§dose that¡¨.
Par 205 ¡V line 3. Use of comma is odd. Suggest deleting or add another comma to read ¡§¡K. from the exposure, or the source of the exposure, itself.¡¨.
Par 220 ¡V line 3. Replace comma with full stop. Line 7 - rogue ¡§a¡¨ - should read ¡§¡Kany decision¡K¡¨
Par 294 ¡V 296. Use of scientific nomenclature is poor and inconsistent with use elsewhere in document. E.g. line 7 should read Bq kg-1. Line 9 space to be inserted in Bqm-3 to read Bq m-3. Par 295 ¡V line 7 should read 1 ƒÝSvh-1. Par 296 line 10 should read Bq m-3 etc
Par 299 - line 8 reads ¡§working level moth¡¨ ¡V this should be ¡§working level month¡¨ (unless the ¡§moth¡¨ is one of the reference animals & plants referred to in chapter 10! ƒº ).
par 300 - line 8 refers to action levels in lower case. Line 14 refers to Action Level in upper case ¡V seems inconsistent.
Par 303 ¡V line 9. Rogue ¡§,¡¨ at end of sentence.
Par 312 ¡V line 3. Reads ¡§¡K.has since long¡K¡¨ - should read ¡§¡Khas long since¡K¡¨
Par 314 ¡V line 8. Extra full stop at end of sentence.
Par 315 - line 6. Rogue ¡§0¡¨ in ¡§s0ome¡¨
Par 318 ¡V line 9. Ambiguous use of scientific notation ¡V 2 10-4 used in line 8, yet 10-5 used in line 9 ¡V suggest it should read 1 10-5 to avoid potential confusion & for consistency.
Par 319 ¡V line 3. As above ¡V suggest it should read 1 10-6 for clarity.
Par 392 ¡V line 7. Insert spaces to read ¡§¡K sampling ¡V it cannot¡K¡¨