Assessing dose of the representative person forthe purpose of radiation protection of the public
The Commission intended that its revised recommendations should be based on a
simple, but widely applicable, system of protection that would clarify its objectives and provide
a basis for the more formal systems needed by operating managers and regulators. The
recommendations would establish quantified constraints, or limits, on individual dose from
specified sources. These dose constraints apply to actual or representative people who
encounter occupational, medical, and public exposures. This report updates the previous
guidance for estimating dose to the public. Dose to the public cannot be measured directly
and, in some cases, it cannot be measured at all. Therefore, for the purpose of protection of the
public, it is necessary to characterise an individual, either hypothetical or specific, whose dose
can be used for determining compliance with the relevant dose constraint. This individual is
defined as the 'representative person'. The Commission's goal of protection of the public is
achieved if the relevant dose constraint for this individual for a single source is met and
radiological protection is optimised.
This report explains the process of estimating annual dose and recognises that a number of
different methods are available for this purpose. These methods range from deterministic
calculations to more complex probabilistic techniques. In addition, a mixture of these techniques
may be applied. In selecting characteristics of the representative person, three important
concepts should be borne in mind: reasonableness, sustainability, and homogeneity. Each
concept is explained and examples are provided to illustrate their roles. Doses to the public are
prospective (may occur in the future) or retrospective (occurred in the past). Prospective doses
are for hypothetical individuals who may or may not exist in the future, while retrospective
doses are generally calculated for specific individuals.
The Commission recognises that the level of detail afforded by its provision of dose coefficients
for six age categories is not necessary in making prospective assessments of dose, given
the inherent uncertainties usually associated with estimating dose to the public and with
identification of the representative person. It now recommends the use of three age categories
for estimating annual dose to the representative person for prospective assessments. These
categories are 0-5 years (infant), 6-15 years (child), and 16-70 years (adult). For practical
implementation of this recommendation, dose coefficients and habit data for a 1-year-old
infant, a 10-year-old child, and an adult should be used to represent the three age categories.
In a probabilistic assessment of dose, whether from a planned facility or an existing situation,
the Commission recommends that the representative person should be defined such that
the probability is less than about 5% that a person drawn at random from the population will
receive a greater dose. If such an assessment indicates that a few tens of people or more could
receive doses above the relevant constraint, the characteristics of these people need to be
explored. If, following further analysis, it is shown that doses to a few tens of people are indeed
likely to exceed the relevant dose constraint, actions to modify the exposure should be considered.
The Commission recognises the role that stakeholders can play in identifying characteristics
of the representative person. Involvement of stakeholders can significantly improve the
quality, understanding, and acceptability of the characteristics of the representative person
and the resulting estimated dose.
The optimisation of radiological protection: Broadening the process
The principle of optimisation of radiation protection is defined by the Commission
as the source-related process to keep the magnitude of individual doses, the number of people
exposed, and the likelihood of potential exposure as low as reasonably achievable below the
appropriate dose constraints, with economic and social factors being taken into account.
According to the revised recommendations of ICRP, this process of optimisation below
constraint should be applied whatever the exposure situation; i.e. planned, emergency, and
existing.
The previous recommendations for the practical implementation of the optimisation process
are still valid. It must be implemented through an ongoing, cyclical process that involves the
evaluation of the exposure situation to identify the need for action, the identification of the
possible protective options to keep the exposure as low as reasonably achievable, the selection
of the best option under the prevailing circumstances, the implementation of the selected option
through an effective optimisation programme, and regular review of the exposure situation to
evaluate if the prevailing circumstances call for the implementation of corrective protective
actions. However, the way in which the optimisation process should be implemented is now
viewed more broadly to reflect the increasing role of individual equity, safety culture, and
stakeholder involvement in our modern societies.
This report is a consolidation and an evolution of the Commission's recommendations
concerning the optimisation principle. After some background information on the foundation
and evolution of the principle, this report describes the main characteristics of the process,
addresses the issue of exposure distribution in that process, and provides the basic requirements
for its application in operation and regulation. A description of decision-aiding techniques
commonly used for practical implementation of the optimisation process is provided in
Annex A.
评分
评分
评分
评分
拿到《ICRP Publication 101》这本书,我的第一反应是它具有一种独特的“分量”。这种分量并非指物理上的重量,而是指其所承载的知识和信息的重要性。这本书的封面设计十分低调,但却透露出一种值得信赖的专业感。在阅读过程中,我发现这本书的章节划分清晰,逻辑性极强,引导读者一步步深入到核心议题之中。作者的语言风格庄重而不失可读性,尽管涉及的专业术语不少,但他(她)们通过巧妙的阐释,让非专业读者也能捕捉到关键信息。我尤其喜欢书中对于一些实际应用场景的描绘,这些场景不仅让理论知识变得更加生动,也让我看到了这些专业知识在现实世界中的价值。书中穿插的图表和数据,更是为整个论述增添了说服力,让我对作者的观点深信不疑。这本书并非那种可以轻松翻阅的小说,它需要读者投入时间和精力去细细品味,但这种投入绝对是值得的,因为从中获得的知识和启发是深远的。
评分《ICRP Publication 101》这本书,从我拿到它的那一刻起,就给我一种“值得信赖”的感觉。它的外观简洁大方,没有花哨的设计,更注重内在的品质。打开书页,我被其清晰的章节结构和严谨的逻辑所吸引。作者在文中并非生硬地灌输知识,而是通过循序渐进的论述,引导读者逐步理解复杂的概念。书中的语言风格非常专业,但又不像某些学术著作那样令人望而却步。我能感受到作者在用一种清晰、准确的方式来表达思想,并且尽力让内容易于被理解。尤其值得称赞的是,书中对一些关键问题的分析非常透彻,深入浅出,让我对该领域有了更深层次的认识。此外,书中引用的资料和数据也显得非常扎实,为论证提供了强有力的支撑。总而言之,这本书给我一种沉静而充满智慧的感觉,它不是那种能让人瞬间获得快感的读物,而是一本需要静下心来,用心去体会和吸收的书籍,它所带来的知识将是持久而有价值的。
评分拿到《ICRP Publication 101》这本书,说实话,刚开始我还有点犹豫。毕竟,作为一名普通的阅读爱好者,我对“ICRP”这个缩写并不熟悉,更不用说“Publication 101”了,这听起来就充满了学术和专业的气息,让我一度担心会啃不动。然而,好奇心还是驱使我打开了它。这本书的外观设计很简洁,没有华丽的封面,但却散发出一种沉静而严肃的质感,这反而让我对内容的深度产生了更多期待。翻开第一页,映入眼帘的是密密麻麻的文字和一些图表,初读之下,确实感受到了一股扑面而来的专业知识洪流。不过,令我意外的是,虽然内容专业,但作者的表达方式并非完全枯燥乏味。他(她)们似乎很努力地试图将一些复杂的概念解释清楚,并且在其中穿插了一些引人思考的案例分析。这本书的排版设计也相对合理,虽然不是那种轻松易读的类型,但至少在视觉上不会让人产生过多的压迫感。我当时就想,即便我不能完全理解书中的所有技术细节,但也许能从中窥见一些宏观的理念或者行业的发展趋势。我决定先浅尝辄止,对整体有一个初步的印象,再考虑是否深入研究。
评分我最近购入的《ICRP Publication 101》这本书,给我带来了非常独特且深刻的阅读体验。这本书并非我平时习惯的文学类或通俗科普读物,它更像是一份沉甸甸的专业报告,但其蕴含的思想和信息量却远超我的预期。刚拿到它时,我便被其严谨的装帧风格所吸引,封面上简洁的文字和标志传递出一种权威感。当我真正开始阅读时,我发现这本书以一种非常系统化的方式,梳理了某个领域内的关键问题,并提供了详实的论证和数据支持。作者的语言风格非常专业,但并非难以理解的晦涩。相反,他(她)们似乎有意地在专业性与可读性之间寻求平衡,力求让更多感兴趣的读者能够把握核心内容。书中的图表和数据分析更是令人印象深刻,它们为作者的观点提供了坚实的基础,也让我能够更直观地理解那些抽象的概念。我尤其欣赏的是,书中对于一些复杂问题的探讨,并非停留在表面,而是深入挖掘其根源,并尝试提出切实可行的解决方案。尽管我并非该领域的专家,但通过阅读这本书,我仿佛置身于一个严谨的学术探讨之中,不断被书中提出的新观点和新视角所启发。
评分说实话,《ICRP Publication 101》这本书的入手,是一次带有强烈目的性的探索。我一直对特定领域的理论框架和发展动向有着浓厚的兴趣,而这本书恰好契合了我想要了解的范畴。它的外观设计相当朴实,没有多余的装饰,一切都以内容为核心。翻开书页,迎面而来的是清晰的目录结构和专业的术语,这瞬间便勾勒出了本书的学术定位。作者的论述逻辑严密,层层递进,仿佛是在为我构建一个完整的知识体系。我特别留意了书中对一些关键概念的定义和解释,它们非常精准,能够帮助读者快速进入状态。而且,书中引用的参考文献也非常详实,这让我看到了作者在研究上的严谨态度,也为我后续进一步的查阅提供了方向。虽然有些篇章涉及的理论深度很高,但我能够感受到作者在努力地将复杂的知识梳理清楚,让读者能够循序渐进地理解。总的来说,这本书给我最大的感受就是“扎实”,它不像一些碎片化的信息,而是提供了一个系统性的、有深度、有逻辑的知识框架。
评分 评分 评分 评分 评分本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息,本站不存储任何数据与内容,任何内容与数据均与本站无关,如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2026 book.quotespace.org All Rights Reserved. 小美书屋 版权所有