Submitted by Sneha Chandrasekhar, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Commenting as an individual
One main focus of the document seems to be the estimation of E for medical exposures. It seems to point to the use of E for classifying different types of imaging modalities into risk categories and the communication of these risks to the general public by educating medical practitioners on the associated risks. The main purpose is to reduce unnecessary exposures. But by communicating risks, the fact that the use of LNT model at very low doses is controversial is not clear. The document has references to the occurrence of possible thresholds but this will also not be understood by the general public when they are only told about risks. (Section 5, lines 1609-1636, 1795-1810)
Equivalent dose was generally in use to account for effects of different types of radiation. With the use of absorbed dose, the limits will have to be considered separately for low and high LET radiations.
One of the reasons cited for the removal of the quantity equivalent dose is the confusion between the 2 quantities ‘dose equivalent’ and ‘equivalent dose’. However, in a previous consultation, (Operational Quantities for External Radiation Exposure) ICRP has recommended the removal of ‘dose equivalent’ also. (Section 6, 1974-1982)
This document has references to Hp(10) etc, which it is assumed will be modified as per the outcome of the previous document. (Sections 3.7 and 4.1)
The reference to “Ranniko 1997” is not given. (1203)