【24h】

Is ICRP guidance on the use of reference levels consistent?

机译:ICRP关于参考水平使用的指南是否一致?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

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.
机译:在已取代ICRP 60的ICRP 103中,声明与ICRP 60相比没有引入根本的改变。这是正确的,只是在紧急情况和现有暴露情况下参考水平的应用似乎不一致,相关出版物ICRP 109和ICRP111。ICRP103强调应将重点放在在紧急情况和现有暴露情况下实施保护策略后的残留剂量。如果可能,优化保护策略的结果应使残留剂量低于参考水平。因此,参考水平表示在实施优化保护策略后的最大可接受残留剂量。它不是可以摆脱当前情况的“现成项目”。应该将其确定为优化保护策略过程的一部分。如果没有,保护将是次优的。但是,在ICRP 103中引入了一些不一致的概念,例如在第279段中指出:``对高于或低于参考水平的所有暴露都应进行最佳保护,并且应特别注意高于参考水平的暴露''。实际上,如果高于和低于参考水平的所有暴露都经过优化处理,则参考水平显得多余。可以考虑,如果有必要在固定参考水平以下优化保护,那么一开始就将参考水平设置得太高。在准备ICRP 103的最后阶段之前,建议使用剂量限制的概念来约束所有类型暴露情况下的防护最佳化。在最后阶段,针对紧急情况和现有暴露情况,将“剂量限制”一词更改为“参考水平”。但是,似乎在ICRP 103中似乎没有完全认识到剂量限制和参考水平在概念上是不同的。审查了放射防护中参考水平的使用。结论是,ICRP 103和相关ICRP出版物中的建议对于在现有和紧急情况下参考水平的使用似乎不一致。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号