|
Only to bring opinion out of USA.
There is a very interesting paper
"Development of ICRP Recommendations" - Comments by the Australasian Radiation
Protection Society (ARPS), December 2001
ARPS COMMENTS The following conclusions from the ARPS presentation at IRPA-10 are still relevant to the latest initiatives of the ICRP: · There is a general consensus within ARPS that there is a need for a new approach to the control of low-level radiation exposure. This is due mainly to the unnecessary expenditure of money now applied to reduce doses already too small to produce detectable harm, particularly when the scientific evidence indicates that the risk is either too small to detect or does not exist at all.· There is a need to make ICRP recommendations easier to understand and easier to implement.· The principle of justification should remain as a matter that is not usually the province of radiation protection authorities.· The principles of optimisation and limitation should continue to apply although it is noted that changed priorities and methods of application are mooted. These changes are discussed below.It is an interesting argument to those interested at at http://www.arps.org.au/Dev_of_ICRP_Recs_2001.PDF Jose Julio Rozental
Israel
I'm with Ruth. As the June 2000 GAO report states on page 10, "Low Level Radiation Effects are Assumed for Regulatory Purposes." I believe this is also the consensus of the professional radiation protection community. There simply is not any sound scientific evidence of any actual health effect below about 5,000 - 10,000 millirem acute dose. As a reminder to folks in California, and to concerned professionals nationwide, State Senator Gloria Romero re-introduced her failed bill from last year in this new legislative session. The bill, in the last session was SB 1623, which never made it out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Romero, never one to be defeated by simple common sense, then gutted and amended another completely unrelated bill (SB 1970), which had made it out of the State Senate, and inserted the language of her languishing SB 1623, subverting the internal legislative checks and balances. SB 1970 passed in the Assembly, so went to the Governor for signature. In one of his rare lucid moments, Governor Davis vetoed the bill. But, the phoenix has risen from the ashes. Senator Romero took the vetoed SB 1970 from last session, crossed out 2002, replaced it with 2003, and reintroduced it as SB 13 on December 4, 2002 (see www.senate.ca.gov, click on "Legislation" and search for "radioactive"). To all those in California who care one whit for our profession, may I suggest the following: 1. Whatever your views on the bill, please contact your representatives, and the author's office and let them be known. 2. When this bill goes to hearing before the various committees, demand that appropriately educated, experienced, or otherwise qualified professionals are available to provide the legislature with scientifically sound information. 3. Ask the state agencies that will be affected to provide a position on the bill. They shouldn't be allowed to dodge the issue simply because it's a political hot potato. They have the expertise available to make recommendations, and they should be held accountable for doing so, even if it means going to the Governor's office to demand it. Sincerely, Barbara L. Hamrick, JD, CHP |