General comments
These comments are compiled by: Karin Aquilonius, Pål Andersson, Anki Hägg, Maria Nordén and Karolina Stark at the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority.
We welcome this document as a valuable contribution for the protection of the environment. We think that the document is well written and that the main conclusions seems reasonable. Our review is on a general level and we have not gone into any details on e.g. the specific scientific reports referred to.
However, we think that one more main point ought to be included: There is a need of more studies – in order to under-pin the main points given in line 127-133 concerning the application RBE values for all RAPs.
Specific comments
Sec (7) It seems reasonable that endpoints connected to population dynamics such as fecundity and mortality are regarded as more direct relevant for population viability than e.g. mutations and heritable effects. However, the latter effects could possibly be relevant for population viability in more indirect ways. The statement about stochastic effects being of less relevance is not self-evident and should be supported by argumentation or referenced research.
In Para (1.1) It is stated that the aims with environmental protections “are to prevent and reduce the frequency of deleterious radiation effects on biota to a level where they would have a negligible impact on the maintenance of biological diversity, the conservation of species or the health and statues of natural habitats, communities and ecosystems”. It is then concluded that The biological endpoints of most relevance are therefore those that could lead to changes in population size or structure.” We suggest to further elaborate on the link between the health and statues of natural habitats, communities and ecosystems and the identified biological endpoints, both deterministic tissue effects and stochastic effects.
Sec (43) The studies referred to, are mostly about rats and mice and do not cover duck, bee, frog, crab, earthworm, pine tree, brown seaweed. We think that to recommend the application of the same RBE weighting for all RAPs without mentioning the need for more research and studies might be to go too far.
In Para (1.1) It is stated that the aims with environmental protections “are to prevent and reduce the frequency of deleterious radiation effects on biota to a level where they would have a negligible impact on the maintenance of biological diversity, the conservation of species or the health and statues of natural habitats, communities and ecosystems”. The following sentence conclude that ”The biological endpoints of most relevance are therefore those that could lead to changes in population size or structure.” For us, this is not obvious and therefore we suggest to further elaborate on the link between the health and statues of natural habitats, communities and ecosystems and the identified biological endpoints.
Sec (43) The studies referred to, are mostly about rats and mice and do not cover duck, bee, frog, crab, earthworm, pine tree, brown seaweed. We think that to recommend the application of the same RBE weighting throughout all RAPs without mentioning the need for more research and studies might be to go too far.
Editorial:
Line 61-62 Typo, delete ”should be used for relevant RAPs”
Line 65 Suggest to delete ”assessment of”
Line 164 Suggest to add ”off a population” after ”the number of individuals” for clarification
Line 503 Typo, ”there” should be repalces with ”these”
Line 61-62 Typo, delete ”should be used for relevant RAPs”
Line 65 Suggest to delete ”assessment of”
Line 164 Suggest to add ”off a population” after ”the number of individuals” for clarification
Line 503 Typo, ”there” should be repalces with ”these”