The aims of the Recommendations ICRP 103
Sunday, April 4, 2010
(26) The primary aim of the Commission’s Recommendations is to contribute to an appropriate level of protection for people and the environment against the detrimental effects of radiation exposure without unduly limiting the desirable human actions that may be associated with such exposure.
(27) This aim cannot be achieved solely on the basis of scientific knowledge on radiation exposure and its health effects. It requires a model for protecting humans and the environment against radiation. The Recommendations are based on scientific knowledge and on expert judgement. Scientific data, such as those concerning health risks attributable to radiation exposure, are a necessary prerequisite, but societal and economic aspects of protection have also to be considered. All of those concerned with radiological protection have to make value judgements about the relative importance of different kinds of risk and about the balancing of risks and benefits. In this, radiological protection is not different from other fields concerned with the control of hazards. The Commission believes that the basis for, and distinction between, scientific estimations and value judgements should be made clear whenever possible, so as to increase the transparency, and thus the understanding, of how decisions have been reached.
(28) Radiological protection deals with two types of harmful effect. High doses will cause deterministic effects (harmful tissue reactions, see Chapter 3), often of an acutenature, which only appear if the dose exceeds a threshold value. Both high and low doses may cause stochastic effects (cancer or heritable effects), which may be observed as a statistically detectable increase in the incidences of these effects occurring long after exposure.
(29) The Commission’s system of radiological protection aims primarily to protect human health. Its health objectives are relatively straightforward: to manage and control exposures to ionising radiation so that deterministic effects are prevented, and the risks of stochastic effects are reduced to the extent reasonably achievable.
(30) In contrast, there is no simple or single universal definition of ‘environmental protection’ and the concept differs from country to country and from one circumstance to another. Other ways of considering radiation effects are therefore likely to prove to be more useful for non-human species – such as those that cause early
mortality, or morbidity, or reduced reproductive success. The Commission’s aim is now that of preventing or reducing the frequency of deleterious radiation effects to a level where they would have a negligible impact on the maintenance of biological diversity, the conservation of species, or the health and status of natural habitats,
communities and ecosystems. In achieving this aim, however, the Commission recognises that exposure to radiation is but one factor to consider, and is often likely to be a minor one. The Commission will give guidance and advice to ensure that its approach is commensurate with the level of risk, and compatible with efforts being made to protect the environment from the impacts of other human activities.
(27) This aim cannot be achieved solely on the basis of scientific knowledge on radiation exposure and its health effects. It requires a model for protecting humans and the environment against radiation. The Recommendations are based on scientific knowledge and on expert judgement. Scientific data, such as those concerning health risks attributable to radiation exposure, are a necessary prerequisite, but societal and economic aspects of protection have also to be considered. All of those concerned with radiological protection have to make value judgements about the relative importance of different kinds of risk and about the balancing of risks and benefits. In this, radiological protection is not different from other fields concerned with the control of hazards. The Commission believes that the basis for, and distinction between, scientific estimations and value judgements should be made clear whenever possible, so as to increase the transparency, and thus the understanding, of how decisions have been reached.
(28) Radiological protection deals with two types of harmful effect. High doses will cause deterministic effects (harmful tissue reactions, see Chapter 3), often of an acutenature, which only appear if the dose exceeds a threshold value. Both high and low doses may cause stochastic effects (cancer or heritable effects), which may be observed as a statistically detectable increase in the incidences of these effects occurring long after exposure.
(29) The Commission’s system of radiological protection aims primarily to protect human health. Its health objectives are relatively straightforward: to manage and control exposures to ionising radiation so that deterministic effects are prevented, and the risks of stochastic effects are reduced to the extent reasonably achievable.
(30) In contrast, there is no simple or single universal definition of ‘environmental protection’ and the concept differs from country to country and from one circumstance to another. Other ways of considering radiation effects are therefore likely to prove to be more useful for non-human species – such as those that cause early
mortality, or morbidity, or reduced reproductive success. The Commission’s aim is now that of preventing or reducing the frequency of deleterious radiation effects to a level where they would have a negligible impact on the maintenance of biological diversity, the conservation of species, or the health and status of natural habitats,
communities and ecosystems. In achieving this aim, however, the Commission recognises that exposure to radiation is but one factor to consider, and is often likely to be a minor one. The Commission will give guidance and advice to ensure that its approach is commensurate with the level of risk, and compatible with efforts being made to protect the environment from the impacts of other human activities.
source: ICRP Publication 103, 2007