(114) In lines 1368 and 1369 there is written that “Minors and those who are pregnant need specific consideration and may be legally excluded from participating in such activities.” I believe that legal excluding of these people in these cases is overregulation that could lead to bigger harm. Exposures for the comforters during X-ray veterinary examinations receive minimal doses and when rules that prevent repeating exposures deduced from previous and following sentences in this paragraph are kept, there is no relevant radiation protection reason that could avert these people comforting during these examinations. Practically it leads to absurd situations when a dog can’t be examined (and therefore treated) only because it is accompanied by a young girl that will have 18th birthday next week. And after 7 days the procedure can be done without limitation (but the health of the dog could be already irreversibly damaged). I believe that such limitation should be excluded from regulations, because the life itself would regulate such a situation – the practitioner would never ask a small child to help during the examination, not because of fear from radiation, but simply the help of such a child would be useless during the examination.
(150) A sentence that encourages further research is very good but I believe that on lines 1739 and 1740 where it encourages further research for understanding of radiosensitivity of different types of animals there should be some notice that it must be done ethically – that any thoughts of researches where animals would be deliberately exposed for understanding of their radiosensitivity should be strictly refused because these experiments would cause much more suffering of the animals then their results can bring. Only animals already exposed because of other reasons (accidents, veterinary care, etc.) could be used for such researches.