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


View Comment

Submitted by David Myers, Member of NCRP but replying as an individual
   Commenting as an individual
Document Emergencies
In general, I think that the draft document is thorough and well done. It provides enough flexibility to address the wide range of radiological emergencies to which it might apply.

I have one general comment and a few editorial comments on the draft document.

My general comment is that since the document focuses exclusively on the response to radiological emergencies, it would be useful to keep the radiological threat in perspective with other possible threats (e.g., chemical or biological) that could be coincident. This would probably be most applicable to malicious intent scenarios. For example, one could make significant efforts to constrain residual radiation doses to reference levels, only to have other non-radiological hazards provide much higher risk to the exposed individuals. These other types of non-radiological hazards don’t need to be addressed in any detail in this report, but it would be useful to acknowledge that they shouldn’t be overlooked.

My editorial comments are as follows. I have tried to give due consideration to the differences between differing versions of English.

Page 7, paragraph k, line 5

I think the work “resource” should be ”resources”.

Page 25, paragraph 45, line 5

The sentence beginning with the words, “In addition, the particular…” seems very awkward.

Page 53, Annex A, title

I think the word “pathway” should be “pathways”