|
General comments |
Sufficient analysis of nominal risk coefficient and detriment calculation were performed for cancer and leukaemia. It would be preferable to add details for risk estimation method, equations and concrete values with uncertainties for hereditary effects as well as cancer and leukaemia. |
|
L142-144 |
Add “to maintain a prudent basis for the practical purposes of radiological protection.” as below. Radiation detriment at low doses or low dose-rates is quantified assuming a linear non-threshold (LNT) dose-response relationship for stochastic effects and applying a dose and 144 dose-rate effectiveness factor (DDREF) of 2 for solid cancer, to maintain a prudent basis for the practical purposes of radiological protection. |
|
L231 |
What is “multi-dimensional concept”? Please explain the detail. |
|
L272 |
Add “(e.g. radiation workers)” as below. …. Radiation detriment can be used for prospective risk assessment of exposure situations for radiological protection purposes or to assess risks in retrospective situations for exposures of identified individuals (e.g. radiation workers). |
|
L273- |
Add “and radiation detriment should not be used instead” as below. For the estimation of the likely consequences of an exposure of a given individual or population, it is preferable to use specific data relating to the exposed individuals when they are available, and radiation detriment should not be used instead. |
|
L280-281 |
ICRP, 1977a) |
|
L363 |
Use “Per persons per Gy”. Please see para. (82). |
|
L478-486 |
It is difficult to understand the data relationship between the reference population and baseline rate for mortality, cancer incidence and cancer mortality. For traceability, it would be appropriate to indicate figure or table of raw data of cancer incidence for Shanghai (China), Osaka, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Japan), Sweden, United Kingdom, and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program of the U.S. National Cancer Institute. |
|
L530 |
Section 3.1.2.1 should cover after para. (36) since Table 3.1 includes bone marrow data. |
|
Table 3.1 |
Scientific papers, such as LSS-14 report should be used as sources. It would be better to identify the original paper as references for bone and skin cancers, but not ICRP Publications 59 and 60. |
|
L550, Figs 3.6, 3.7 |
Please clarify the sex for Figs 3.6 and 3.7. See its explanation (L550) |
|
L592-593 |
“However, the equations of the EAR-based and ERR-based models for leukaemia were not available.” It would be better to show the best-estimated value which the TG obtained with uncertainty and reason if available. |
|
L596-612 |
It would be better to identify the original paper as references, but not ICRP Publications. |
|
L613 |
ICRP Publication 103 says “The LAR was used in this report to estimate lifetime risks.” Please explain for this. |
|
L668 |
Delete “No DDREF was applied at this step of calculation.” Since section 3.1.3 treats the lifetime excess risk, which also includes leukaemia risk. |
|
Fig. 3.12 |
It is preferable to make the same positional relationship between the contents in the legend and four bars in the graph. Is this normalized data? If there is another data for “Adult workers”, please add. |
|
Table 3.4 |
Please add values for “Adult workers”, and for bone marrow. |
|
Tables 3.5, 3.6 |
Do the values indicate “case” also for bone and skin cancers? How these values were estimated while mortalities were shown in Table 3.1? |
|
L892 |
Add “for whole body exposure” as below. …at low doses and low dose rates for whole body exposure. |
|
Table 3.7 |
What is the reason for excluding ovary? |
|
L907 |
Add “regardless of public and occupational exposure” as below (84) The Commission has defined a single set of wT values that is applied to both sexes and all ages regardless of public and occupational exposure. |
|
L1057 |
Should “Table 4.2” be “Table 4.1” ? |
|
L1101- |
“For colon, breast, bladder, thyroid cancers and other solid cancer, there is a noticeable reduction in radiation detriment using the lethality data from Publication 103, compared to detriment using a lethality fraction equal to one.” Suggestion: “For colon, breast, bladder, thyroid cancers and other solid cancer, there is a noticeable increase in radiation detriment using a lethality fraction equal to one, compared to the detriment using the lethality data from Publication 103.” |
|
L1205- |
Please add explanation the treatments of smoking for lung cancer risk estimates if possible. |
|
L1460-61 |
Add “risk” as below. … of the risk transfer model. |
|
L1467-1468 |
Add “sex and lethality fraction” as below DDREF, age at exposure, sex and lethality fraction are key factors to be considered to improve radiation risk estimation in the future |