The remarkable work of all the 93 task group members on the draft document of “Radiological Protection of People and the Environment in the Event of a Large Nuclear Accident” is appreciated. Upon review, we have identified 3 main, 69 specific, and 37 editorial comments. The main comments are as follows, and the others are found in the attached file.
Main comments:
(1) Please clearly state that the purpose of the document has not been applied to current and ongoing situations, for example, in the IARC document. This report aims to update publications 109 and 111 and consider radiological protection to prepare for future incidents, taking into account previous accidents and current experiences. It is not easy to formulate suggestions for any changes for an ongoing situation; therefore, we suggest that the ongoing situation is regarded as beyond the scope of the report.
(2) Valuable details of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters are presented in the annexes. However, it is difficult to compare each section in the annexes because the order of contents does not match in many cases (e.g., A.2.1 is “Protection strategy for the early phase” but B.2.1 is “Urgent protective actions,” which is A.2.2. in Annex A). To avoid confusion, please provide a similar structure across the annexes.
(3) Please clarify evidence of new criteria such as “10 mSv” or “below 1 mSv” in the report. As mentioned at specific comments No 24, whereas the evidence of the description seemed very poor, 10mSv is described as the key benchmark dose. Based on the ALARA principle, the 10 mSv is not necessarily justified as in the case of the evacuation and return of the evacuees after Fukushima disaster. If there are no evidence for the justification of the 10 mSv, the value should not be included in the document.
We hope our comments are helpful in improving the draft.
Comment