Are public dose limits necessary?

Abstract

The distinction between practices and interventions in the System of Radiation Protection has created a lot of confusion in the population and amongst decision-makers, especially with regards to the concepts of dose limits and intervention levels. The experience gained after the Chernobyl accident indicated that many actions taken led to an unnecessarily large expenditure of national resources and many instances occurred of contradictory national responses. A major reason was the mixture of dose limits for the population, which apply only to exposures from practices, and intervention levels, which apply only to protective measures in de-facto exposure situations. The existing System of Radiation Protection is revisited and it is suggested that the System can be revised with no dose limits for the public without causing a lower degree of protection of the population. With the widespread use of source-related dose constraints and practical restrictions on the sources of public exposure from practices, generally applicable dose limits are rarely limiting in any practical situation, even if dose constraints might, at least in principle, fail to take adequate account of the exposures from other practices. Constraints can be expressed as operational protection quantities, e.g., nuclide-specific release rates, dose rate at the fence of a facility, or nuclide-specific surface contamination density in the environment. A revised System of Radiation Protection without public dose limits would not cause any reduced protection of the public compared to the existing System, and it has a potential for removing much of the confusion with regards to application of intervention/action levels. It would also have the potential for improving public perception of radiation protection and radiation risks as well as for saving vast resources in intervention situations for better application in general health care of the public.