>Conc 1 says that at low doses {you can't tell much because of weak signal-to-noise etc} >Conc 2 implies there is no {direct evidence ...} below about 10 mGy Noting also various text in the Exec summary, one is left with the impression that a few mGy or less is regarded as a low dose. But 1 mGy is 100 times the lowest constraint suggested in the draft 2005 recommendations. And 1 mGy is average background when radon is taken off. So is it sensible for 1 mGy be called 'low'? Is a dose called 'low' if it has low health risk associated with it, or if the risk associated with it is difficult to assess, or if it has no significance wrt supervision of protection, or if it is a small fraction of background? Perhaps some kind of connection should be made to the levels of constraint suggested suggested in the draft 2005 recommendations and the use of high, medium and low dose as used in the current document. The very last sentence of the Exec Summary appears to go beyond the scope of the report, since it bears on use of risks estimates for low doses (Comm 4?) an not on what the risks are.