ICRP Main Commission Meeting

1998 October 11-14 Stockholm, Sweden

The MC received progress updates regarding the following reports:

• Doses to the Embryo and Foetus from Intakes of Radionuclides by the Mother
• Application of the ICRP Human Respiratory Tract Model
• Reliability of ICRP Dose Coefficients for Intakes of Radionuclides
• Anatomical Data

The former two reports were approved for final publication given that the amendments discussed by the Commission were implemented. The Commission thanked the groups responsible for the latter two documents for their work and made suggestions related to research methodology and approach to determining risk.

The MC received reports from the following Committees regarding progress on reports and research:

C1 – A new name and mission statement was presented to the Commission alongside updates on research related to low dose exposure and cancer risk. The Commission noted that it was unlikely for different cancers to have the same probability after exposure to radiation. Dr. Ullrich was appointed to a member of C1.
C2 –A new name and mission statement was presented to the Commission. Professor Kaul then gave presentations on connection between ongoing tasks between work on dose coefficients for new models and new data. Work was presented on development of voxel phantoms and that a phantom of a fetus would not be possible. The Commission approved a liaison between C2 and C3 regarding radio nucleotides in breast milk.
C3 – The name and new mission statement was presented to the Commission. Summary of work was mostly concerned with pregnancy and nuclear medicine dose control.
C4 – A new name and mission statement was presented and approved by the Commission. Progress reports were given regarding TG work on disposal of radioactive waste. The discussion was focused on adding clarification statements into the report, and using more specific language to fully convey the meaning of the report.

Standing item regarding Committee input into Publication 60 was brought up, specifically with regards to development of a-bomb data, effects of protracted radiation, and risk factors possibly reducing in magnitude. Different Committees offered view points on the aforementioned topics as per their area of specialty. Some specific topics that were discussed were:

• C3 determined that there is nothing wrong with current radiation weighting
• User input should be collected from readers of Publication 60
• ‘Tolerance’ Dose is an acceptable term
• The controllable dose concept would be major improvement over linear hypothesis