Hedemann-Jensen Per, McEwan Andrew C
Danish Decommissioning, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark.
J Radiol Prot. 2011 Dec;31(4):431-44. doi: 10.1088/0952-4746/31/4/003. Epub 2011 Nov 17.
In ICRP 103, which has replaced ICRP 60, it is stated that no fundamental changes have been introduced compared with ICRP 60. This is true except that the application of reference levels in emergency and existing exposure situations seems to be applied inconsistently, and also in the related publications ICRP 109 and ICRP 111. ICRP 103 emphasises that focus should be on the residual doses after the implementation of protection strategies in emergency and existing exposure situations. If possible, the result of an optimised protection strategy should bring the residual dose below the reference level. Thus the reference level represents the maximum acceptable residual dose after an optimised protection strategy has been implemented. It is not an 'off-the-shelf item' that can be set free of the prevailing situation. It should be determined as part of the process of optimising the protection strategy. If not, protection would be sub-optimised. However, in ICRP 103 some inconsistent concepts have been introduced, e.g. in paragraph 279 which states: 'All exposures above or below the reference level should be subject to optimisation of protection, and particular attention should be given to exposures above the reference level'. If, in fact, all exposures above and below reference levels are subject to the process of optimisation, reference levels appear superfluous. It could be considered that if optimisation of protection below a fixed reference level is necessary, then the reference level has been set too high at the outset. Up until the last phase of the preparation of ICRP 103 the concept of a dose constraint was recommended to constrain the optimisation of protection in all types of exposure situations. In the final phase, the term 'dose constraint' was changed to 'reference level' for emergency and existing exposure situations. However, it seems as if in ICRP 103 it was not fully recognised that dose constraints and reference levels are conceptually different. The use of reference levels in radiological protection is reviewed. It is concluded that the recommendations in ICRP 103 and related ICRP publications seem to be inconsistent regarding the use of reference levels in existing and emergency exposure situations.
已取代国际放射防护委员会第60号出版物的第103号出版物指出,与第60号出版物相比未引入根本性变化。确实如此,只是在应急和现有照射情况下参考水平的应用似乎不一致,在相关出版物《国际放射防护委员会第109号出版物》和《国际放射防护委员会第111号出版物》中也是如此。国际放射防护委员会第103号出版物强调,重点应放在应急和现有照射情况下实施防护策略后的剩余剂量上。如有可能,优化防护策略的结果应使剩余剂量低于参考水平。因此,参考水平代表实施优化防护策略后的最大可接受剩余剂量。它不是一个可以脱离当前情况而设定的“现成标准”。它应作为优化防护策略过程的一部分来确定。否则,防护就不会达到最佳效果。然而,国际放射防护委员会第103号出版物引入了一些不一致的概念,例如在第279段中指出:“高于或低于参考水平的所有照射都应进行防护优化,应特别关注高于参考水平的照射”。实际上,如果高于和低于参考水平的所有照射都要进行优化过程,那么参考水平似乎就多余了。可以认为,如果有必要对低于固定参考水平的防护进行优化,那么参考水平从一开始就设定得过高。在国际放射防护委员会第103号出版物编写的最后阶段之前,一直建议使用剂量约束来限制各类照射情况下的防护优化。在最后阶段,对应急和现有照射情况,“剂量约束”一词改为“参考水平”。然而,在国际放射防护委员会第103号出版物中似乎没有充分认识到剂量约束和参考水平在概念上是不同的。本文对放射防护中参考水平的使用进行了综述。得出的结论是,国际放射防护委员会第103号出版物及相关出版物在现有和应急照射情况下参考水平的使用方面似乎不一致。