Re: " New ICRP guidelines to 'clarify' collective dose, Dicus says"

["jjcohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>]

" New ICRP guidelines to 'clarify' collective dose, Dicus says "

    I am confused and need help. Because of  my handicap (In college, 

    I flunked "Intrigue and Subterfuge"),  I am hoping that someone can 

    explain the Dicus comments on ICRP - 60. Specifically:

    1.- If collective dose cannot be used for epidemiological studies, or to 

    predict future consequences,--- What good is it? 

    2.- As I recall, a main advantage of using collective dose is that it is a 

    "convenient" concept.  Isn't  it convenient any more?

    3.- How can the collective dose concept be applied toward 

    "protection of the individual" (either people or animals)?



    Dicus said that while "effective dose is intended to be the 

    principal quantity to be used in radiation protection" the 

    commission's guidelines will spell out that "it is not appropriate 

    to use estimates of effective dose for epidemiological 

    studies or to predict the consequences of exposure. Effective 

    dose should not be used to estimate the consequences of a radiological injury." 

    ICRP "will retain the concept of collective dose," Dicus 

    said, however, the commission will address criticism that "it 

    has been misapplied"since ICRP-60 was published. The new 

    guidelines "will put it into its proper context. The main 

    point is that (collective dose) will not be used to predict 

    what will happen in the future." 

    The basic distinction between three categories of exposure 

    groups-non-professionals, radiation professionals, and 

    those working constantly in a controlled radiation environment- 

    will be retained, Dicus said. 

    The ICRP debated "whether to regulate the medical industry," 

    Dicus said, but that was "ultimately rejected," she said. 

    Regardless of some outside criticism, the ICRP "is not 

    going to abandon the concept of collective dose," Dicus 

    said. "But there will be more attention to protection of the individual." 

    The ICRP also "chose to discuss environmental protection, 

    a subject which had not been treated in the past." 

    Until now, she said, the ICRP had operated on the premise 

    that "if you are protecting humans, you are protecting the 

    environment. That might not be the case. There are places 

    where humans are not." Independent of the ICRP, "several 

    countries" were moving toward setting up guidelines for 

    environmental protection in radiation regulations "and the 

    absence of international consistency was of concern" to the 

    ICRP, she said. The result of the ICRP recommendations 

    "may be establishment of dose limits for animals. We have a 

    potential list, and we're working on it." 

    The bottom line of the new guidelines, she said, is that, 

    14 years after ICRP-60 was issued and drew criticism from 

    industry and some other professional quarters, "we can't 

    lower the standards" in ICRP-60. "We are very cautious 

    about this. We can't explain (lower standards) to the public."- 

    Mark Hibbs, Honolulu