The Dutch Society of Radiation protection should appreciate, that if the > announced New Recommendations 2005 are going to be accepted, a more > evolutionary fine-tuning of ICRP publication 60 is made instead of a whole > new serie of publications (100?). > There is no indication of the promised simplification and increase in > transparency . It often remains unclear, whether ICRP60-recommendations > are still valid or overridden. > > After consultations the Dutch Society of Radiation Protection > hasformulated the following statements as outcome of the discussion with > her members: > - No major problems are identified in the present system of protection > during normal situations! So why New Recommendations? > - (macro) Justification is determined by Society, (micro) Justification is > a part of RP system and determined by RP-experts. So they should therefore > be a part of the New Recommendations! > - The definition of "dose constraint" and single source are unclear. The > introduction of a source dose constraint does not contribute to a better > understanding of the principals of RP. > - The Dutch Society for Radiation Protection (NVS) is not convinced by the > arguments of the ICRP to rename deterministic effects into tissue > reactions and equivalent dose into radiation weighted dose. Introduction > of new terminology leads to a lot of confusion. It also negatively > influences the credibility of the 1990 Recommendations, and therefore the > NVS strongly opposes the proposed changes. > - We support the attempt to introduce environmental elements into the RP > system. > - We welcome the introduction of lower boundaries (exclusion levels). > - The introduction of a threshold for the teratogenic effect is very > useful.