[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: dose limits for members of the public
Dear Bjorn,
According with European ALARA Network Issue 9 - March 2001
http://ean.cepn.asso.fr/
Sweden
Member of the Public 1mSv/year
“Workers A” and Major Students
100 mSv /5 years & 50 mSv/ year
“Workers B” and Minor Students
6 mSv/year
Pregnant Women and Foetus
1 mSv (foetus) *
* for the remainder pregnancy period
Workers in exceptional circumstances (excluding emergency situations)
case by case (needs SSI approval)
About your statement "The individual increase in dose to the general
public shall be below 0.01 mSv per person and year from each separate
activity."
This is not a change in dose limit - This is what I wrote in my last message
constraint, this is not applied to the practice but to the source into the
practice or only to the source.
In normal exposure situations annual doses are either being delivered or
will certainly occur in the future - These may also be situations in which
the exposure is not certain to occur and the attributable dose may have only
a small probability of being incurred. These are termed situations of
potential exposure.
For all these circumstances is necessary to fix dose to public to be sure,
that the external and internal sum will never be above 1 mSv/y limit
Jose de Julio Rozental
joseroze@netvision.net.il
Israel
----- Original Message -----
From: Bjorn Cedervall <bcradsafers@HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: dose limits for members of the public
>>It may be of general interest to the Radsafers group to know (unless I
mentioned it earlier) that we now are heading for 0.01 mSv/yr - the
>>decision was taken three months ago.
-----------------------------------------------------
>Sweden is a member of the European Union. The maximum permissible dose
(rate) is 1 mSv/a for member of the publics and this had to be implemented
into national law. Sweden has implemented it. If a member state would like
to set different limits (not only regarding doses!), it has to provide the
European Commission with an explanation of the reason, why it wants to do
that. It is not thinkable, that the Commission and the other states would
accept a dose limit of 0.01 mSv per year. Moreover I would like to know, how
this could be controlled - with backgrounds of at least 1 mSv/a!
----
I agree - just a few more comments:
We are presently at 1 mSv/yr. The proposed change can be found at our
government site:
http://miljo.regeringen.se/propositionermm/propositioner/pdf/p200001_130.pdf
This text (pdf file) is in Swedish - the critical text is on page 72 - a
translation can be as follows:
1. The year 2010 the concentration of substances released to the environment
from all activities shall be so low that public health and the biological
diversity is not threatened. The individual increase in dose to the general
public shall be below 0.01 mSv per person and year from each separate
activity.
(The next point may also interest some Radsafers:
2. The year 2020 the annual number of skin cancers caused by sun exposure
shall be below that of the year 2000.)
Now - what comes up on the political radiation protection agenda in Sweden
may very well become established at an EU level.
This cannot be taken for granted however - as an example:
Our government representatives in 1999 found spam to be no problem and of
great potential commercial value and therefore decided that it should be
allowed in most forms. This became a law - but now this law has to be
changed because EU to the opposite standpoint...
The bottom line should perhaps be that this (0.01 mSv/yr) is at least a
warning: Say that it is very cold some day here in northern Europe and we
are already lacking 1000 MWe for some reason and in addition some small
nuclear fuel damage occurs somewhere: Should that nuclear plant then be shut
down = we black out the equivalent to a city with perhaps 100 000
inhabitants that day (I refer to the magnitude of the potential problem -
just a very rough estimate from my side)?
Now - it is more complicated than this because an increased _rate_ of
release is allowed for a shorter time period as long as we don't cause a
total of an individual in a critical group to receive more than 0.1 mSv/year
(0.01 mSv/yr in the future?).
Part of the problem is that the general public has no idea about what is
going on, the context, potential impact and so on. I don't think that most
people would accept the 0.01 mSv/yr if they had a reasonable perspective of
the issue.
My personal ideas only - please correct or add anything that should be
added,
Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers@hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/