introduction to draft 2005 recommendations from icrp n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Introduction to Draft 2005 Recommendations from ICRP PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Introduction to Draft 2005 Recommendations from ICRP

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 38

Introduction to Draft 2005 Recommendations from ICRP - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 246 Views
  • Uploaded on

Introduction to Draft 2005 Recommendations from ICRP. Ching-Pang Lu Kuosheng Nuclear Power Plant, Taiwan Power Company 18/10/2004 email: u807711@taipower.com.tw. History of the ICRP ecommendations. ‧Recommendations of ICXRP(1928 - 1950) ‧ICRP-1 ( 1959 ) ‧ICRP-6 ( 1964 ) ‧ICRP-9 ( 1966 )

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Introduction to Draft 2005 Recommendations from ICRP


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
introduction to draft 2005 recommendations from icrp

Introduction to Draft 2005 Recommendations from ICRP

Ching-Pang Lu

Kuosheng Nuclear Power Plant, Taiwan Power Company

18/10/2004

email: u807711@taipower.com.tw

slide2

Historyof the ICRP ecommendations

‧Recommendations of ICXRP(1928-1950)

‧ICRP-1(1959)

‧ICRP-6(1964)

‧ICRP-9(1966)

‧ICRP-26(1977)

‧ICRP-60(1991)

‧ICRP-??(2005)

slide3

ICRP-60回顧(A review of ICRP-60)

The 1990 system of protection, set out in Publication 60 (ICRP 1991), was developed over some 30 y. During this period, the system became increasingly complex as the Commission sought to reflect the many situations to which the system applied .

-Roger H. Clarke (Health Phys. 87(3):306 –311; 2004)

slide4

Major reasons for the change of the recommendations addressed by ICRP

The complexity of ICRP-60 is logical but not easy to explain the variations between different applications .

Confusion between dose limits and action levels.

The cost-benefit analysis procedures for ALARA and optimization (ICRP-37&55) have been never adopted.

The concept of “constraint” has not been clearly explained.

Themisuse of collective dose- widely used over world population and all time.

LNT controversy and confusion.

The new biological data.

development of the new icrp recommendations essential milestones
Development of the new ICRP recommendations-essential milestones

Critical review on current system by Clarke(HPS)

1998

Initial proposal promulgated through IRPA and JRP for discussion.

1999

2000

Comments from IRPA-10 /Began to develop the new recommendations.

2001

Continual debates with iteration of ideas at the international forums or workshops held by OECD/NEA, etc.

2002

2003

Presentation atIRPA-11/Draft text of the 2005 ICRP recommendations for consultation.

2004

2005

The new recommendations will be issued.

slide6

Main features of the new recommendations

The need for stability in international and national regulations has been taken into account.

Reflecting both the scientific understanding of the biological effects and the social and ethical standards.

Simpler approach based on “individual oriented” philosophy rather than current “society oriented” criteria.

Quantifying themost basic level of protection from single source in all situations- Maximum dose constraints.

Complementing the constraints and limits with the requirements for the optimization of protection from a source.

Emphasizing that procedure of diagnostic or therapeutic should be justified with clinical benefit for the patient dose.

Incorporating a policy for radiological protection for non-human species in the new system.

essential changes in the new recommendations summarized by roger h clarke 2004
Essential changes in the new recommendations(Summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004)

Linearity

Current

New

Clarify concept and applicable range, i.e., above a few mSv /y

Linear non-threshold, i.e., proportionality

The LNT controversy: Academically interesting but practically meaningless!!

Abel J. González

slide8

△D1= △D2

△p1= △p2

低劑量下的劑量回應關係(The dose-response relationship at low-doses)

資料來源;Abel J. González, Radiation safety and their application: International policies and current issues, Health Physics: Volume 87(3) September 2004 p262.

slide9

Essential changes in the new recommendations(summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004)

Radiation weighting factor

Current

New

ICRP-60

Revised values for protons and neutrons(ICRP-92)

slide11

Essential changes in the new recommendations(summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004)

Tissue weighting factor

Current

New

ICRP-60

New values based on revised risk factors and a simplified basis/individual organs changed

slide13

Essential changes in the new recommendations(summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004)

Nominal risk coefficient

Current

New

ICRP-60

Risk coefficientsforTotal cancer fatality slightly modified /Hereditary use UNSCEAR (2001)

slide15

Caveat on effective dose and nominal risk coefficients

    • Don’t use Nominal riskcoefficient or effective dose for:
  • -Estimating risks retrospectively for
  • individuals.
  • -Epidemiological purposes with
  • populations.
slide16

Essential changes in the new recommendations(summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004)

Dose limits

New

Current

Worker and public in ICRP-60

Incorporated into revised constraints /only applied to all sources in normal situation.

slide17

Essential changes in the new recommendations(summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004)

Constraints

Current

New

Number and complexity to be reduced

30 numerical values for constraint in the 10 ICRP reports, level of concern Effective dose

factor influencing the choice of individual dose constraints

Major Concepts of the new ICRP recommendations

‧Factor influencing the choice of individual dose constraints

Annual effective dose from natural radiation sources

1msv/a to which rounded from 1.2msv with a range 0.8 to 2.4msv quoted in UNSCEAR 2000 by ICRP

Excluding radon

The need for action vs. individual effective dose

slide19

Emergencies, evacuations, no justification above

100

Incremental dose

mSv in a year

20

Some benefits to exposed individuals

Societal rather than individual benefit

1

0.01

Natural background~ (1 mSv/a)

Minimum value

Recommended maximum values for dose constraints on single sources

from : Richard V. Osborne, 2004

slide20

INDIVIDUAL- AND SOURCE-RELATED CONCEPTS資料來源: Ches Mason, International Conference on National Infrastructures for Radiation SafetyRabat, Morocco 1-5 September 2003

INDIVIDUALS ARE PROTECTED

FROMALLREGULATED SOURCES

BY THEDOSE LIMITS

INDIVIDUALS ARE PROTECTED

FROM ASINGLESOURCE

BY THEDOSE CONSTRAINT

slide21

Dose Limit

from : Richard V. Osborne, 2004

slide22

Dose Constraint

from : Richard V. Osborne, 2004

slide23

Essential changes in the new recommendations(summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004)

Collective dose

Current

New

ICRP-60

Disaggregated and replaced by weighted dose matrix

slide24

Essential changes in the new recommendations(summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004)

Justification

Current

New

ICRP-60

Retained, extended for patient exposure

slide25

Essential changes in the new recommendations(summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004)

Optimization

Current

New

Cost-benefit analysis

Stakeholder involvement

slide26

Major Concepts of the new ICRP recommendations

‧ Stakeholder involvement

One ofthe major achievements of ICRP for developing the new recommendations istherole that is now recognized to “stakeholder involvement” in the optimization process as a mean to improve the quality of the decision aiding process for identifying and selecting protection actions considered as being accepted by all those involved.

slide27
Roger Clarke noted that cultural differences make it difficult for stakeholders from different parts of the world to participate equally in developing international regulatory guidance such as that offered by ICRP.
slide28

Essential changes in the new recommendations(summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004)

Exemption

Current

New

ICRP-60

Replaced by exclusion

slide30

Essential changes in the new recommendations(summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004)

Definition of ‘individual’

Current

New

New consideration

ICRP-29

age-weighted approach

Characterising the individual

Time frames and spatial distributions

Uncertainty

slide31

Essential changes in the new recommendations(summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004)

Practice

Current

New

ICRP-60

Retained

slide32

Essential changes in the new recommendations(summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004)

Intervention

Current

New

ICRP-60

Incorporated into constraints

slide33

Essential changes in the new recommendations(summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004)

Natural radiation sources

Current

New

Comprehensive treatment

Radon-222 only

slide34

Essential changes in the new recommendations(summarized by Roger H. Clarke, 2004)

Environment (nonhuman)

Current

New

Assumed protected in ICRP-60

Explicitly addressed

slide35

人類與其他物種輻射防護系統共同架構示意圖(Developing a common approach for the radiological protection of humans and non-human organisms )資料來源:Annals of ICRP Volume 33, issue 3, A framework for assessing the impact of ionising radiation on non-human species, ICRP Publication 91, September 2003, p.254.

references
References

1.ICRP, 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Annals of the ICRP 21 (1-3), Pergamon Press, 1991.

2.Summary excerpted from the draft ICRP Recommendations that will be subjected to public consultation from June 2004.

3.IRPA 11Daily Newsletter 25th of May 2004.

4.The Future Policy for the Radiological Protection Workshop Proceedings, OECD/NEA, Lanzarote, Spain, 2-4 April, 2003.

5.ICRP Publication 91, A framework for assessing the impact of ionising radiation on non-human species , Annals of the ICRP Volume 33, Issue 3, Pergamon Press, 2003 .

references1
References

6.ICRP Publication 92, Relative biological effectiveness (RBE), quality factor (Q), and radiation weighting factor ( wR ), Annals of the ICRP Volume 33, Issue 4, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 2003

7.2005 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (Draft for Consultation), 21 June 2004.

8.Abel J. González, Radiation safety and their application: International policies and current issues, Health Physics: Volume 87(3) September 2004.

9.Ches Mason,International Conference on National Infrastructures for Radiation Safety Rabat, Morocco 1-5 September 2003, IAEA.

references2
References

10.Roger H. Clarke, Draft recommendations from ICRP at the start of the 21ST century, Health Physics: Volume 87(3) September 2004.

11.Richard V. Osborne, Are the Proposed Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection Taking Us in the Right Direction? Robert S. Landauer, Sr. Lecture, 49th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society, Washington, DC, 2004 July 11-15.

12.Stakeholder Participation in Radiological Decision Making- Processes and Implications-Third Villigen Workshop , OECD/NEA, Villigen, Switzerland - 21-23 October 2003.