A view from Europe: stability, consistency or pragmatism.
The last few years of this decade look like a period of reappraisal of radiation protection standards. The revised risk estimates from Japan will be available, and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation will be publishing new reports on biological topics. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has started a review of its basic recommendations, and the new specification for dose equivalent in radiation fields of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) will be coming into use. All this is occurring at a time when some countries are still trying to catch up with committed dose equivalent and the recently recommended change in the value of the quality factor for neutrons. In Europe, the problems of adapting to new ICRP recommendations are considerable. The European Community, including 12 states and nine languages, takes ICRP recommendations as a basis and develops council directives that are binding on member states, which have then to arrange for their own regulatory changes. Any substantial adjustments could take 5 y or more to work through the system. Clearly, the regulatory preference is for stability. Equally clearly, trade unions and public interest groups favor a rapid response to scientific developments (provided that the change is downward). Organizations such as the ICRP have to balance their desire for internal consistency and intellectual purity against the practical problems of their clients in adjusting to change. This paper indicates some of the changes that might be necessary over the next few years and how, given a pragmatic approach, they might be accommodated in Europe without too much regulatory confusion.
Dunster
H J
HJ
National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.
D005060:Europe; D006801:Humans; D008452:Maximum Allowable Concentration; D011835:Radiation Protection; D012926:Social Control, Formal