Radiation Detriment Calculation Methodology


Draft document: Radiation Detriment Calculation Methodology
Submitted by Annegret Günther, Global Research for Safety (GRS)
Commenting on behalf of the organisation

Line (paragraph)

 

142 (b)             ‘…low doses or low dose-rates…’

                        Inconsistent spelling in the document

181 (d)            ‘…additional risks reflecting heritable effects…’

                        It can be more than one additional risk

209 (i)              ‘There is considerable uncertainty about the existence or not of a threshold for circulatory disease, and cataract and the shape of the dose-response curve at low doses if there is no threshold.’

                        Clarification

222 (1)             ‘For low-dose or low-dose rate exposures, …’

                        Consistency

221 - 223 (1)   ‘…low-dose, low-dose rate exposures…’

                         At this point, we propose to define “low-dose” or to provide a reference, where it is defined, like ICRP publication 99

267 (7)             ‘The Commission believes…’

                        Proposal to use a “stronger” verb, e.g. “is convinced”

312 (11)           ‘…about the same as that for the development of leukaemia (e.g. i.e. 20 10-4 Sv-1).’

                        According to line 309 this is a fact, not an example

334 (13)           ‘Publication 27 (ICRP, 1977b) provided supporting guidance to the general recommendations in Publication 26 (ICRP, 1977a) general recommendations.’

339 (13)           ‘By comparing different occupational risks, …’

489 (31)           ‘…period 1993–1997) …’

545 (37)           Please explain the meaning of alpha1, alpha2 and beta in the equation

569 (38)           ‘…for solid cancers incidence…‘

639 (46)           ‘…age n in the unexposed case.’

841 (74)           qmin, given in table 3.6, is not explained in this section, but later on in 3.2.2;

                         Please provide a cross reference as it is done in table 3.1 for risk transfer model

1175 (106)       ‘… assuming a female-only population doubles the radiation detriment for breast and ovarian cancers in comparison with the sex-averaged detriment;’

                         Would it not be better to show examples, where the differences between male and female aren’t sex specific, like thyroid or lung?

1461 (135)       ‘As was demonstrated in Section 4, …’

1617                ‘Gray’

                        Consistent spelling; here it’s written in capital letters, in line 1649 not.

1654                ‘…in the absence of exposure to…’


Back