International Commission on Radiological Protection

Report 2006-2008

80 Years of Radiological ProtectionICRP Report 2006-2008 revision 1
ICRP Reference 90/547/09
2009-09-01© ICRP 2009

2006-2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chairman’s Foreword .............................................................................................................................. 1
The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) ......................................................... 3
Broad Structure ................................................................................................................................... 3
Membership ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Meetings .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Financing............................................................................................................................................. 3
Mode of Operation .............................................................................................................................. 4
Objective ............................................................................................................................................. 4
The Work Programme of ICRP and Its Committees ............................................................................... 6
The Main Commission and the Scientific Secretariat ......................................................................... 6
Committee 1 (Radiation Effects) ....................................................................................................... 10
Committee 2 (Doses from Radiation Exposures) ............................................................................. 12
Committee 3 (Protection in Medicine) .............................................................................................. 15
Committee 4 (Application of the Commission’s Recommendations) ............................................... 18
Committee 5 (Protection of the Environment) .................................................................................. 22
ICRP Publications 2006-2008 ........................................................................................................... 24
Complete List of ICRP Publications in the First 80 Years (1928-2008) ................................................. 33
Obtaining ICRP Publications ................................................................................................................. 38
Composition of ICRP and Its Committees 2006-2008 .......................................................................... 39
Main Commission ............................................................................................................................. 39
Committee 1 (Radiation Effects) ....................................................................................................... 39
Committee 2 (Doses from Radiation Exposures) ............................................................................. 39
Committee 3 (Protection in Medicine) .............................................................................................. 39
Committee 4 (Application of the Commission’s Recommendations) ............................................... 40
Committee 5 (Protection of the Environment) .................................................................................. 40
ICRP Chairs and Scientific Secretaries in the First 80 Years (1928-2008) ............................................ 41
Summary Financial Information 2004-2008 .......................................................................................... 42
Organisations Providing Grants to ICRP 2006-2008 ............................................................................. 43
Contact Information ............................................................................................................................... 44i2006-2008

ii

2006-2008

CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD
feedback received through the many
workshops that I and other ICRP
members attended.
We are extremely grateful to the manyorganisations, experts, and individual
members of the public who have devoted so much of their time and experience to this effort. As acknowledged in the editorial of ICRP Publication 103, “We could not have done it
without your help”.

The ICRP Main Commission and all
Committees achieved an importantmilestone in late 2007 with the approval of the 2007 Recommendationsof the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP Publication 103). This marked the end of amajor effort spanning nearly a decade,and the most extensive public consultation undertaken to date by ICRP.
There were two rounds of formal
world-wide consultation, aided by several international agencies including
the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation of Economic Cooperation
and Development who organised
seven international workshops andperformed four in-depth reviews ofdraft ICRP texts. The European Commission organised a similar workshop
to debate the scientific issues in the
Recommendations. Overall more than
two thousand pages of comments
were received, in addition to direct

There is no doubt that this extensive
consultation, although costly both financially and in terms of the timespent, has resulted in more robust anduseful Recommendations. Moreover,the consultation process, which engaged hundreds of radiological protection
professionals
world-wide,
sparked in-depth discussions on thesystem of radiological protection resulting in a broadening and deepening
our collective understanding of theparadigm that will serve us all well.
We look forward to continuing open
consultation, crucial for the future success of our reports.
The end of 2008 draws us close to theend of the current four-year term of
ICRP membership. At the end of thisterm, on June 30, 2009, I will retire
from ICRP to focus on other challenges. Being part of this highly renowned scientific organisation has

1

2006-2008
been one of the most interesting andchallenging tasks during my entire career. Over the years, I have learnt somuch from my participation in Committee 1 and from my twelve years on
the Main Commission.
I am particularly proud and grateful forhaving had the privilege of leading theCommission during the last period ofwork with the 2007 Recommendations.
It was sometimes a difficult task but
always rewarding and stimulating.
The new Main Commission is well
suited for the new challenges of ICRP.
I am delighted that Claire Cousins willlead the Commission over the next
four years. Her experience and leadership, together with the collective experience and skills of all members of
the Main Commission and Committees, will ensure that ICRP continues
to be the leading international organisation for radiological protection.
Many exciting challenges lie ahead for
ICRP. There is much work to do describing the revised system of radiological protection, introduced in ICRP
Publication 103, in more detail. Morework is required to develop the computational phantoms described in Publication 103; many of the essential
tools, such as dose conversion fac-

tors, need to be updated; further work
is required to describe the system as it
applies in planned, existing, andemergency exposure situations; application of the system of protection to
the environment needs to be fully developed and described; and the list
goes on.
In addition, ICRP must continue to respond to emerging needs of the radiological protection community. For example, the last several years haveseen a significant increase in patient
doses related primarily to a rapid risein the number of CT scans performed
worldwide, as well as increased doses
from individual CT scans using newtechnologies. Radiological protection
in medicine has been a major focus for
ICRP since its inception, and has continued to be a focus in recent years.
ICRP must retain this focus in the newterm in response to the current trend
in CT doses.
Not least of all, ICRP must continue tobe aware of changes in both the science and social values that are thefoundations of the system of radiological protection, to ensure that the system continues to remain relevant andpractical, and continues to provide anappropriate level of protection.

Lars-Erik HolmICRP Chairman 2005-2009

2

2006-2008

THE INTERNATIONALPROTECTION (ICRP)COMMISSION

The International Commission on RadiologicalProtection (ICRP) is the primary international
body in protection against ionising radiation.
ICRP is a registered charity and is thus an independent non-governmental organisation. It
was formed in 1928, by the International Congress of Radiology, as the ‘International X-ray
and Radium Committee’, to advance for the
public benefit the science of radiological protection.
ICRP adopted its present
name in 1950 to reflect its
growing involvement inareas outside that of occupational exposure in
medicine, where it originated.

ON

RADIOLOGICAL

July 2005, Committee 5 (Protection of the Environment), ad hoc Task Groups and Working
Parties, and the Scientific Secretariat.

MEMBERSHIPThe Main Commission consists of twelve
members and a Chair, while the Committees
contain some 15 members each (except
Committee 5 which issomewhat smaller).
ICRP is an independent

Registered Charity established to advance for the
public benefit the scienceof radiological protection,in particular by providing
recommendations andguidance on all aspects
of protection against ionising radiation

The ICRP provides recommendations and guidanceonprotection
against the risks associated with ionising radiation, from artificial sources
widely used in medicine,
general industry and nuclear enterprises, andfrom naturally occurring sources. These reports and recommendations are publishedfour times each year on behalf of the ICRP as
the journal Annals of the ICRP. Each issue
provides in-depth coverage of a specific subject area.

BROAD STRUCTURE
ICRP consists of the Main Commission, Committee 1 (Radiation Effects), Committee 2(Doses from Radiation Exposure), Committee
3 (Protection in Medicine), Committee 4 (Application of ICRP Recommendations), since 1

The Commission and its
Committees run for fouryear periods, from July 1st.
On each occasion of anew period, at least three,and not more than five,members of the Commission must be changed. A
similar rate of renewal issought for the Committees. The current periodruns from 2005 July 1st to2009 June 30th.

MEETINGSThe Commission normally meets once or
twice a year. Each Committee meets once ayear. At least twice in each four-year period
the annual meeting of the Committees is conducted jointly and together with the Commission.

FINANCING
The activities of ICRP are financed mainly by
voluntary contributions from national and international bodies with an interest in radiologi-

3

2006-2008
cal protection. (A list of the bodies providing
such contributions is included later in this report). Some additional funds accrue from royalties on ICRP Publications. Members’ institutions also provide support to ICRP by making
the members’ time available without charge
and, in many cases, contributing by covering
their costs of attending ICRP meetings.

MODE OF OPERATION

ture described provides a rigorous Quality
Management system of peer review for the
production of ICRP Publications.
Furthermore, before draft ICRP reports areapproved for publication, they are regularly
circulated to a number of bodies and individual experts, and posted for public consultationon the Internet.

OBJECTIVE

The Commission uses Task Groups and Working Parties to deal with specific areas. Task
In preparing its recommendations, the ComGroups are formally appointed by the Commission considers the fundamental principles
mission to perform a defined task, usually theand quantitative bases on which appropriate
preparation of a draft report. A Task Group
radiation protection measures can be estabusually contains a majority of specialists fromlished, while leaving to the various national
outside the Commisprotection bodies thesion’s structure. It is
responsibility of formuThefirstfundamental
recomfunded as necessary
lating the specific adfrom monies available
vice, codes of practice,mendations were produced in
to ICRP.
or regulations that are
1928, when ICRP was called
best suited to the
the
IXRPC
(International
X-ray
Working Parties are set
needs of their individup by Committees toual countries.
and Radium Protection Comdevelop ideas, somemittee)
times leading to the
The primary aim of theestablishment of aCommission’s
RecTask Group. The membership of a Working
ommendations is to contribute to an appropriParty is usually limited to Committee memate level of protection for people and the envibers. Working Parties receive no funding ofronment against the detrimental effects of ratheir own, i.e. they operate primarily by corrediation exposure without unduly limiting thespondence and by meetings in direct conjuncdesirable human actions that may be assocition with meetings of the Committee conated with such exposure.
cerned.
This aim cannot be achieved solely on the baThese activities are co-ordinated with a minisis of scientific knowledge on radiation expomum of bureaucracy by a Scientific Secretary,
sure and its health effects. It requires a model
ensuring that ICRP recommendations arefor protecting humans and the environment
promulgated.
against radiation. The Recommendations are
based on scientific knowledge and on expert
Thus, ICRP is an independent international
judgement. Scientific data, such as those connetwork of specialists in various fields of radiocerning health risks attributable to radiation
logical protection. At any one time, about one
exposure, are a necessary prerequisite, but
hundred eminent scientists are actively insocietal and economic aspects of protection
volved in the work of ICRP. The four-tier struchave also to be considered. All of those con-4

2006-2008
cerned 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 otherfields concerned with the control of hazards.

The Commission believes that the basis for,and distinction between, scientific estimationsand value judgements should be made clear
whenever possible, so as to increase thetransparency, and thus the understanding, of
how decisions have been reached.

5

2006-2008

THE WORK PROGRAMME OF ICRP AND ITS COMMITTEESTHE MAIN COMMISSION AND THE SCIENTIFIC SECRETARIAT

Main Commission Members in Berlin, 2007
The Main Commission is responsible for management and oversight of all of the work of theCommittees, and approval of all ICRP publications. The sections that follow, each focusing
on one of the five ICRP Committees, describes
this work in detail.
Main Commission members and the Scientific
Secretary continued to play a key role in thedissemination of information beyond the Annals of the ICRP, through presentations anddiscussions at many seminars, meetings, conferences, workshops and other fora. During
this period many, but not all, of these focusedon the 2007 Recommendations of the Interna-

tionals Commission on Radiological Protection.
Thus, contacts were held and continued with
the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA), the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU), theInternational Radiation Protection Association(IRPA), the International Society for Radiology,

6

the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (OECDNEA), the United Nations Scientific Committee
on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and many other organisations.
ICRP also continued its relationship with theInternational Electrotechnical Commission(IEC) and the International Standards Organization (ISO), primarily through exchange ofdraft reports and information. On a number ofoccasions when ICRP was unable to send aformal representative, we arranged to obtainobservers’ reports so as to keep abreast with
developments.
During 2006-2008, the Scientific Secretariat
continued to be situated in Stockholm, Sweden. The seat of ICRP remains in the United
Kingdom where ICRP is a Registered Independent Charity.
Tasks of the Secretariat included preparations
for and organisation of meetings, final editingof reports for publication in the Annals of the2006-2008
ICRP, maintenance of contacts with all collaborating organisations, and administrative
issues. The Secretariat also devoted an increasing part of its efforts to running the ICRPInternet web site. Apart from providing general
information about ICRP, the web site has
proved particularly useful when ICRP wants to
consult on its own draft documents
As usual, there was also a brisk demand for
informal enlightenment and information via
telephone, e-mail, and regular mail to the Secretariat.
The current four-year ICRP term of membership ends on June 30, 2009. Thus, newmembers of the Main Commission and Committees were elected at the November 2008
meeting of the Main Commission in Buenos
Aires (coinciding with the 12th International
Congress of the International Radiation Protection Society).
In the term beginning July 1, 2009 Dr. Claire
Cousins, consultant vascular radiologist at
Addenbrooke's Hospital, UK, will serve as the
12th ICRP Chair since 1928, taking over from
Dr. Lars-Erik Holm who served for the last two
terms and is now retiring from ICRP service.
Dr. Cousins is a member of the British Instituteof Radiology Radiation Protection Committee
and a guest member of the European Societyof Radiology Radiation Protection Committee.
Dr. Abel González will serve as Vice-Chair. He
succeeds Dr. Roger Cox who will continue toserve ICRP as a member of Committee 2. At
the same time four new Main Commission
members were elected: Professor Eliseo Vañó
(Complutense University, Spain) as Committee 3 Chair, Dr. Jacques Lochard (CEPN
France) as Committee 4 Chair, Dr. John Cooper (UK HPA), and Dr. Ohtsura Niwa (NIRS,Japan). Many new Committee and Task
Group members were also elected.
As well, Dr. Jack Valentin announced his retirement after a long and distinguished career,
the last decade of which has been as ICRP
Scientific Secretary.
Christopher Clement
was formally introduced to the Main Commission at their November 2008 meeting as the
new Scientific Secretary of ICRP, the 5th since
the position became full-time in 1962.
Mr. Clement began employment with ICRP on
December 1, 2008, to officially take on the roleof Scientific Secretary as of January 1, 2009.
Dr. Valentin continued working part-time to aid
in the transition.

ICRP Publication 103: The 2007 Recommendations of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection
The primary focus of the Main Commission,
Secretariat, and all Committees during thisperiod was the completion of the 2007 Rec-ommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP Publication 103), approved at the Main Commission in
October 2007. The final rounds of the extensive public consultation required considerable
effort and resulted in approximately 1200
pages of comments. All of these comments
were reviewed in detail, resulting in substantive improvements to the text.

The Main Commission, Secretariat, and all
Committees played significant roles in the development of ICRP Publication 103.
Annex A of Publication 103 summarises all
Committee 1 judgements since 1990 relating
to the health effects of radiation, in order tounderpin the New Recommendations. In manyof the areas considered, Committee 1 had already provided specific judgements, e.g. on
risk of multifactorial diseases (Publication 83)
and on Relative Biological Effectiveness ofdifferent radiations (Publication 92). However,
the revision of judgements on the induction of7

2006-2008
tissue reactions, on the nominal risk coefficients for cancer and heritable disease, thetransport of cancer risk between different
populations, and on the choice of tissue
weighting factors, required much additionalwork.
An additional feature is the extent to which theaccumulation of epidemiological and biological knowledge since 1990 has served tostrengthen some of the judgements made in
Publication 60 or, in some cases, led to a revision in procedures for risk estimation. In spiteof the detailed nature of these gains in knowledge the principal objective of this report isthe provision of broad judgements for practical
purposes of radiological protection. The primary risk of radiation-induced cancer is now
based upon incidence data rather than theinformation on fatal cancer risks, as was usedin Publication 60, because of improved datafrom the extended follow-up of the atomicbomb survivors in Japan. Overall, however,when assessing total radiation detriment there
is little difference from that given in Publication
60, reflecting little change in the assessmentof the overall risk of radiation-induced cancer.
There is, however, an increase in the risk ofbreast cancer that is based upon incidence in
the A bomb survivors and some medically exposed groups. The risk estimate for hereditarydisease is decreased because multifactorialdiseases are now judged to contribute lessthan previously assumed, and because theoverall estimate is now based upon estimatesof effects in the first two generations rather
than in all future generations. The dose response for both cancer and hereditary effects,
at low doses, continues to be based upon theassumption of a simple proportional relationship between dose and risk (i.e. the linear
non-threshold, LNT, model). Also, a dose anddose rate effectiveness factor (DDREF) of 2
continues to be used for assessing risks at low
doses from risks obtained in populations exposed at high doses. The radiation weighting

8

factor wR for protons was reduced from 5 to 2,
and the value for neutrons was revised to be acontinuous function of neutron energy. New
information on the risk of cancer in different
tissues and of the treatment of hereditary disease given in Publication 60 resulted in somechanges to tissue weighting factors wT for individual organs and tissues, with the mainchanges being an increase for the breast anda decrease for the gonads (based on thelower heritable risk).
For the 2007 Recommendations, Committee 2
was responsible for the preparation of Chapter 4 and Annex B, both entitled: Quantities
used in Radiological Protection. Explanation
is given of the calculation and intended application of the protection quantities, equivalentand effective dose.
Annex B provides a detailed discussion of the
ICRP protection quantities and their application in radiological protection in the assessment and limitation of doses resulting fromexternal and internal exposures. It explains thebasis for and use of radiation weighting factors
in the calculation of equivalent dose to organs
and tissues and discusses the use of age- andgender- averaged tissue weighting factors,
derived by Committee 1, in the calculation ofeffective dose. The document also discusses
the relationship between these quantities andoperational quantities used in dose monitoring
and assessment. Doses calculated using
ICRP methodology are single-valued, basedon calculations for reference individuals, although in practice there is variation between
individuals and uncertainties in the assumptions made in calculating dose. The document
discusses sources of uncertainty and limitations on the use of ICRP protection quantities.
There are some changes to the recommended
radiation weighting factors, wR, used in thecalculation of equivalent dose. In particular acontinuous energy function is to be given forneutrons (with some change in the function

2006-2008
above 1 MeV from that given in Publication 92)
and the wR for protons is to be reduced from 5
to 2. For low-LET x-rays and gamma rays aswell as tritium, the wR will continue to be one
and the value for alpha particles remains at 20.
Committee 3 used many of its recent publications on medical aspects of radiological protection to compile the Foundation Document
for the 2007 Recommendations resulting in theseparate Publication 105, “Radiological Protection in Medicine”. This Task Group waschaired by Marvin Rosenstein.
Committee 4 supported the work of the Main
Commission on the new Recommendations
leading to their publication in 2007 (Publication 103). The dialogue with the observer organisations was of particular importance sinceagencies have been working towards revisionof the international (under the auspices of
IAEA) and regional (EURATOM) Basic Safety
Standards in line with the new ICRP recommendations.

As a result of Committee 5’s early deliberations the ICRP, in its 2007 Recommendations,considered it appropriate to broaden its overall
scope in order to address directly the subjectof protection of the environment, and thus toinclude in its general aims those of preventing
or reducing the frequency of deleterious radiation effects in the environment to a level where
they would have a negligible impact on themaintenance of biological diversity, the conservation of species, or the health and statusof natural habitats, communities, and ecosystems. The Commission also stated that it believed that its approach to environmental protection should be both commensurate with theoverall level of risk, and thus optimised, andthat it should be compatible with other approaches being made to protect the environment. A brief separate chapter on environmental protection was included for the first
time.

9

2006-2008

COMMITTEE 1 (RADIATION EFFECTS)
Committee 1 has the responsibility for maintaining under review the biological effects of ionising radiation and developing documents that relate such effects to the needs of radiological protection.
The members offer experience in epidemiology, statistics, medical sciences, animal sciences, celland molecular biology, biophysics and genetics. The committee covers issues of tissue reactions,risks of cancer and heritable diseases including dose responses, effects of dose-rate and radiation
quality, effects in the embryo/foetus and genetic factors in radiation response, as well as uncertainties
in providing judgements on radiation-induced health effects. The committee advises the Main Commission on the biological basis of radiation-induced health effects and how epidemiological, experimental and theoretical data can be combined to make quantitative judgements on health risks to humans, particularly at low doses.

Committee 1 Members in Berlin, 2007
The major work of the committee in 2006-8
was to complete Annex A of the New ICRP
Recommendations (as described previously),
initiate three Task Groups on areas of concern
identified in the draft Recommendations, review on an annual basis the activities of otherorganisations involved in radiation risks (e.g.
UNSCEAR, NCRP, DOE, RERF) as well as thevarious topics of epidemiology, exposure anddosimetry, DDREF, radiobiology, germ cells
and heritable effects, epigenetic effects, DNA
repair and non-targeted effects.

Task Group 63 on Tissue Reactions and Non-cancer Effects
Chair: Dr. Fiona Stewart
This Task Group is reviewing tissue and healtheffects of ionising radiation at high doses, with

10

particular reference to their implications fordose limits in radiation protection and for assessing health risks after accidental or therapeutic exposure. This entails a major updateof ICRP publication 41 (1984), with specialreference to those tissues and organs that areconsidered to be most important, based on an
analysis of the relevant clinical and laboratory
data. Apart from a general chapter on theprinciples of tissue response, dose-rate, fractionation and LET effects, there are specificchapters on the haematopoietic, digestive,
reproductive, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal,
endocrine and nervous systems, the eye, theskin and the urinary tract. In particular, there isinclusion of new data on the risk of radiationinduced cataracts and cardiovascular effects,
which are suggesting lower threshold doses
than previously considered. The influence ofpotential modifiers of the inherent radiation

2006-2008
sensitivity of normal tissues is also being considered, with respect to compounds that either
exacerbate or ameliorate radiation injury. The
increasing evidence for such modification has
led to a change in terminology from ‘deterministic effects’ to ‘tissue reactions’. The report ishoped to be completed for publication in2010.

Task Group 64 on Alpha Emitters
Chair: Dr. Margot Tirmarche
This Task Group is considering exposure toradon in homes and in the mining environment, occupational exposures of Mayak andother workers to the clinical use of Thorotrast
and the occupational and clinical use of radium. For radon, a review is nearing completion on lung cancer risk in relation to domestic
exposure as well as recently published data
coming from uranium miners focusing on relatively low annual exposure rates. In both situations results are available through large international joint analyses. Pooled epidemiological studies of residential radon exposures in
Europe, North America and China have provided good evidence of increase in lung cancer risk in relation to accumulated domestic
radon exposure, both for smokers and nonsmoker populations. A significant increase
was observed at levels down to below
200 Bq m-3 in the European pooling. These
data provide the basis for the control of radon
exposures in homes on the basis of direct evidence of lung cancer risks. The report will be
prepared in collaboration with members ofCommittee 2.

ence to mechanisms of radiation carcinogenesis. There are chapters on the generalfeature of stem cells, stem cells in relation to
the risk of prenatal irradiation, haematopoietic
tissue, mammary gland, thyroid, digestive
tract, lung, skin, and bone. Each chapter discusses carcinogenesis, radiation qualities,
general features of tissues and target cells,
tissue turnover rate, radiosensitivity andmutagenesis. The report is intended to compare the response of stem and associatedcells in different tissues with the respective
risks of cancer, and to elucidate the likely stem
cell role. Finally, to use knowledge of stem cell
responses and carcinogenic risks from homogeneous acute irradiations, to project stochastic risks for short-range radiations and chronic
irradiation scenarios.

Publications 2006-2008•

Publication 99: Low dose extrapolation ofradiation-related cancer risk•

Publication 100: Human Alimentary Tract
Model for Radiological Protection (withCommittee 2)•

Publication 103: The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, Annex A:
Biological and Epidemiological Information on Health Risks Attributable to Ionising Radiation: A Summary of Judgements
for the Purposes of Radiological Protection of Humans

Planned Publications
Task Group 75 on Stem Cell Biology in relation to Carcinogenic
Radiation Risk
Chair: Dr. Ohtsura Niwa
The purpose of the Task Group is to review
stem cell biology and radiobiology with refer-•

Tissue Reactions and Non-cancer Effectsof Ionising Radiation Exposure•

The Risks of Alpha Emitters•

Stem Cell Biology in relation to Carcinogenic Radiation Risk

11

2006-2008

COMMITTEE 2 (DOSES FROM RADIATION EXPOSURES)
Committee 2 is concerned with the development of dose coefficients for the assessment of internaland external radiation exposure of workers and members of the public, considering different situations of exposure. This work involves the development of reference biokinetic and dosimetric models,reference anatomical models of the human body, and reference anatomical and physiological data.

Committee 2 in St. Petersburg, 2008
Like the other Committees, a major focus has
been on contributions to ICRP Publication 103
as already described.
Effective dose has been widely used in radiological protection and is a valuable quantity fordemonstrating compliance with dose limits inrelation to exposure to external radiation andintakes of radionuclides. It is not appropriate in
all circumstances and guidance is given on
where its use is not appropriate, for example inretrospective assessments of organ/tissue
dose for epidemiological studies, in individual
risk estimates after exposures above dose limits and especially after exposures to high radiation doses. The need for further guidance isrecognised and a Task Group will be set up to
consider the use of effective dose for different
applications.
The new recommendations have necessitatedthe recalculation of dose coefficients for exposure to external and internal sources of radiation. In addition to changes in radiation andtissue weighting factors, these calculations
will, for the first time, be performed using ref-12

erence anatomical models. Other improvements will also be made to dosimetric models
and to the biokinetic models used to represent
the behaviour of radionuclides in the bodyfollowing intakes by inhalation or ingestion.

Task Group 4 on Dose Calculations (DOCAL)
Chair: Prof. Wesley Bolch (previously Dr. Keith
Eckerman)
DOCAL is responsible for developing methods
for the calculation of doses from both external
and internal sources of radiation. A report has
now been finalised as Publication 107: Nuclear
Decay Data for Dosimetric Calculations, providing a replacement for Publication 38. It
consists of an explanatory text, with an accompanying CD that provides data on the radiation emissions of 1252 radioisotopes of 97
elements. A report is also nearing completionon reference anatomical models for the adultmale and female. These voxel-based computational phantoms, based on segmented tomographic images, will replace the stylised
phantoms used previously in organ and tissue

2006-2008
dose calculations for external and internal radiations. Publication 110 will include a CD
which will provide data to enable dose calculations to be performed with the reference models; annexes will give example dose calculations. Work is also in progress to improve thecalculation of doses to regions within theskeleton that represent targets for the induction of bone cancer and leukaemia. Reference
models for children will also be developed.
The new models will be used in the calculationof revised dose coefficients for exposures toexternal radiation and intake of radionuclides.
Work is in progress on a replacement for Publication 74, giving revised conversion coefficients for protons, pions, muons, and helium
ions as well as neutrons, photons and electrons / positrons.

Task Group 21 on Internal Dosimetry (INDOS)
Chair: Dr. John Harrison (previously Dr. John
Stather)
INDOS is responsible for developing biokinetic
models for radionuclides entering the body byinhalation or ingestion and, working with DOCAL, prepares reports on doses from radionuclide intake by workers and members of the
public. Work is in progress to replace Publications 30 and 68 that give biokinetic data anddose coefficients for occupational intakes ofradionuclides by inhalation and ingestion, andPublications 54 and 78 that give information
for bioassay interpretation, with a single seriesof publications. The new ICRP model of thehuman alimentary tract, Publication 100, will
be used and revisions will be made to the
Human Respiratory Tract Model. Consideration is being given to a separate report on intakes of radionuclides through wounds, following publication of a wound model by the US
National Council on Radiation Protection andMeasurements (NCRP). Doses will be calculated using revised nuclear decay data andnew anatomical models (see Task Group on
Dose Calculations, DOCAL).

Task Group 67 on Radiation Exposures of Astronauts in Space
Chair: Prof. Günther Dietze
This Task Group was set up in 2005 to assess
exposures from the complex radiation fields
encountered in space, which include high energy particles with unique high LET components, very different from radiation fields onearth. The report will focus on giving data on
doses from exposure to the different radiation
types encountered in space. With support
from the DOCAL Task Group, the new ICRP
reference anatomical models will be used to
calculate absorbed dose coefficients for organs and tissues of the human body. These
data, together with information on radiation
field parameters outside and inside the vehicle, will be used to assess the correlation between dosimeter readings and values of theprotection quantities.
Committee 2 also provides members for Task
Groups of other committees: Committee 1
Task Group on epidemiology relating to exposures to alpha-emitting radionuclides; Committee 1 Task Group on stem cell radiobiology; Committee 3 Task Group on doses fromradiopharmaceuticals; and the Committee 5
Task Group on radiation effectiveness factors
for non-human biota.

Publications 2006-2008•

Publication 100: Human Alimentary Tract
Model for radiological protection•

Publication 107: Nuclear Decay Data for
Dosimetric Calculations

13

2006-2008

14

Planned Publications••

Publication 110: Computational reference
phantoms for the adult male and female

Computational Phantoms for the Pregnant
Female, Embryo, and Foetus••

Dose Conversion Coefficients for External
Radiation Source (ICRP / ICRU)Internal SAF Values for Embryo, Foetus,
Children and Pregnant Female••

Radiation Exposures of Aircrew: DOCAL(ICRU / ICRP)

Occupational Intakes of Radionuclides
Part 1•

Public Exposures to Radionuclides•

Radiation Protection Dosimetry in Space•Radionuclides in Wounds•

Internal SAF Values for the Reference
Adult Male and Female•

Occupational Intakes of Radionuclides
Parts 2 and 3•

Computational Phantoms for the Infant
and Children•

Doses to the Embryo, Foetus, and Nursing
Infant2006-2008

COMMITTEE 3 (PROTECTION IN MEDICINE)
Committee 3 is concerned with protection of persons and unborn children when ionising radiation isused for medical diagnosis, therapy, or for biomedical research; also, assessment of the medical
consequences of accidental exposures.

Committee 3 Members in Berlin, 2007
During 2006 – 2008, Committee 3 had meetings in San Francisco (2006), Berlin (2007)
with the Main Commission and other Committees, and Mallorca (2008).
Committee 3 continued to highlight focussed
aspects of radiological protection relevant tomedicine with ongoing task groups and working parties as described below.

Task Group 70 on Avoiding Radiation Therapy Accidental Exposures when Using New Technologies
Chair: Dr. Pedro Ortiz Lopez
The rapidly evolving technology in this fieldrequires new guidance on accidental exposures and hence an update of Publication 86
is appropriate. The title of this document has
been changed to “Minimizing unintended exposures in radiation therapy from new technologies”. This is an advanced document andonly minor changes were proposed by themembers of the Committee. The document

was presented to the Main Commission in October 2008 and following consultation will be
published in 2009.

Working Party on Evaluation andManagement of Secondary Cancer Risk in Radiation Therapy(with special reference to modern
techniques)
Chair: Prof. Jean-Marc Cosset
This is a project performed in collaboration
with ICRU and a considerable amount ofemerging data is being analysed for compilation of this report. It is hoped the work can becompleted during 2009.

Task Group 62 on Radiation Protection for Cardiologists Performing Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures
Chair: Dr. Claire Cousins
This rapidly expanding field of medicine bothin numbers and complexity requires guidance

15

2006-2008
for the practitioners. The title of the document
was modified to “Radiological Protection in
Cardiology” and the document will be extended to include cardiac CT and nuclear
medicine imaging with completion in 2009.

Working Party on Protecting Children: Diagnostic Techniques Involving Ionizing Radiation
Chair: Dr. Hans Ringertz
It is important to emphasise that in the field ofradiological protection, children cannot simply
be treated as small adults and specific guidance is required. This working party continues
to develop the document which it is anticipated can be completed during 2009.

Working Party on avoiding adverse radiation effects to doctors
performing fluoroscopy guided
procedures
Chair: Prof. Madhan Rehani
Many medical specialists now use ionisingradiation as part of their practice and this isoften performed with little or no knowledge ofradiation effects. Areas to be addressed andwhich specialties to include were discussed byCommittee 3 and the decision was made toproceed to a Task Group on this topic.

Working Party on Radiologicalprotection training for medical
professionals performing diagnostic and interventional proceduresand for medical students
Chair: Prof. Eliseo Vañó
This is a complex and broad task to address
with issues varying between countries anddepartments. Committee 3 decided to appointa couple of new members to the working party
and then take this forward as a Task group in
2009.

16

Committee 3 has also been working with
Committees 2 and 4 as a working party on theuse of effective dose (Committee 3 members
M Rosenstein and P Ortiz). It is recognisedthat further guidance is necessary, including inmedicine, and a Task group will be established to further this work.

Publications 2006-2008
Completed work during this time led to three
ICRP Publications. The changing technology
of computed tomography and rapid introduction of multi-detector scanners produced
many challenges for the radiological protection of patients. An update of Publication 87
was required and Madan Rehani chaired theTask Group on “Managing Patient Dose inMulti-Detector Computed Tomography”, which
was published as Publication 102.
The continuing work of Committees 2 and 3
on “Radiation Dose to Patients from Radiopharmaceuticals”, chaired by Sören Mattsson
resulted in Publication 106. There is an appropriate annexe in this publication entitled“Radiation exposure of hands in radiopharmacies : monitoring of doses and optimisation ofprotection”, led by Julian Liniecki, which highlights a common practical issue and includes
original work by the authors.
•

ICRP Publication 102: Managing Patient
Dose in Multi-Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT)•ICRP Publication 105: Radiological Protection in Medicine•

ICRP Publication 106: Radiation Dose toPatients from Radiopharmaceuticals: Addendum 3 to ICRP Publication 53

Proposed Areas of Work•

Follow up of persons accidentally exposed

2006-2008•

Radiological protection in radiation therapy with protons and heavy ions••

Widening the use of reference levels forinterventional radiology, digital radiology
and new technology

Committee 3 continues to have close links
with other organisations and many membersof Committee 3 have been involved in bothorganising and lecturing at national and international meetings on radiological protection toincrease awareness of the work of ICRP related to medicine.

•

Occupational protection in brachytherapy•

Dose reduction resulting from new imaging technology•

Screening with ionising radiation in asymptomatic individualsProtection in PET (PET/CT) and cyclotrons17

2006-2008

COMMITTEE 4 (APPLICATION OF THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS)ICRP Committee 4 has the responsibility to consider the practical application of the Commission’s
recommendations. The Committee also acts as a major point of contact between the ICRP structure
and other international organisations and professional bodies concerned with protection against ionising radiation.

Committee 4 Members in Berlin, 2007
Committee 4 counts 16 members in the 20052008 membership, as well as 9 observers (EC,
IAEA, IEC, ILO, IRPA, ISO, NEA, UNSCEAR,
WHO) under the chairmanship of Annie Sugier
and with Jean-François Lecomte as Secretary.
Much of the program of work of Committee 4
during the years 2006 to 2008 was closely
connected to the finalization of the new recommendations (Publication 103) and the relevant building blocks as well as their application in specific types of exposure situations.

lished in one document (Publication 101 –2006). The first part of the issue is the reporton assessing doses to representative persons.
It concerns a classical problem: to ensure thatmembers of the public are adequately protected. The second part is devoted to broadening the process of optimisation. It is a consolidation and an evolution of the Commission’s recommendations concerning the optimisation principle which is at the very heart ofsuccessful radiological protection.

Each member of Committee 4 is assigned
specific responsibilities such as Vice-chair,
Secretary, Chair of a TG, member of a WP,
drafter of a discussion paper or critical reviewer of a draft report of the Committee.

Publication 104

Publication 101
Two building blocks completing Publication 103 were of the responsibility of Committee 4: on Optimisation and on the Representative Individual. The corresponding reports
were completed and approved by the Main
Commission in Bern in 2005. They were pub-

18

Committee 4 also discussed the document on
the scope of radiological protection regulations issued in 2007 as Publication 104. It
provides advice for determining the radiation
exposure situations that should be covered by
the relevant regulations based on justificationof their regulatory control and, conversely,
those that may be considered for exclusionfrom the regulations because the situation isdeemed unamenable to regulatory control or
the regulatory control is unjustified.

2006-2008
Two reports on the application of the new recommendations in specific situations havebeen developed during 2005 to 2008 for publication in 2009.

Task Group 65 on the applicationof the Commission's Recommendations for the protection of the
populations during nuclear or radiological emergencies
Chair: Dr. Wolfgang Weiss
A report has been prepared by this Task
Group to provide advice on the application of
Publication 103 including the preparedness
for, and response to, radiation emergency exposure situations. It deals with the recommendations related to such exposure situations in
the Publication 103 which re-state the principles of justification and optimisation, the requirement to protect against severe deterministic injury. It recommends that appropriate
reference levels should be set in the band of
typically 20 to 100 mSv effective dose (acuteor in a year), emphasising that protection
against all exposures, above or below the reference level, should be optimised.
The report recommends that more complete
protection be achieved by simultaneously
considering all exposure pathways and all
relevant protection options when deciding on
the optimum course of action in the context ofan overall protection strategy. Such an overall
protection strategy must be justified, resulting
in more good than harm. In order to optimise
an overall strategy, it is necessary to identify
the dominant exposure pathways, the timescales over which components of the dose will
be received, and the potential effectiveness of
individual protective options.
The report also recommends that, in bothplanning and in the event of an emergency,
decisions to terminate protective measures
should have due regard to the appropriate
reference level. The change from an emer-

gency exposure situation to an existing exposure situation is based on a decision by theauthority responsible for the overall response.
The report explains that this transition may
happen at any time during an emergency exposure situation and that it may take place at
different geographical locations at different
times. The report also recommends that thistransition should be undertaken in a coordinated and fully transparent manner and understood by all involved parties. The report
was approved by the Main Commission in October 2008 for publication.

Task Group 66 on the applicationof the Commission’s Recommendations for the protection of
populations living in contaminated territories after a nuclear
accident or a radiological event
Chair: Dr. Jacques Lochard
A report has been prepared by this Task
Group to provide guidance for the protectionof individuals living in long-term contaminatedareas resulting from either a nuclear accident
or a radiological event. The report considers
the effects of a nuclear accident or radiologicalevent on the affected population. This includes
the pathways of human exposure, the types of
exposed populations and the characteristics of
exposures. Although the focus is put on radiation protection, the report also recognises thecomplexity of the post-accident situations,which cannot be managed without addressing
all the affected domains of daily life i.e. environmental, health, economic, social, psychological, cultural, ethical, political, etc.
The report explains how the new Commission’s Recommendations apply to this type ofexisting exposure situation including consideration on the justification and the optimisationof protection strategies and the introduction
and application of a reference level to drive theoptimisation process. The report also consid-

19

2006-2008
ers practical aspects of the implementation ofprotection strategies, both by authorities andthe affected population. It emphasises the effectiveness of involving directly the affected
population and the local professionals in the
management of the situation and the responsibility of authorities at both national and local
levels to create the conditions and provide themeans favouring the involvement and empowerment of the population. The role of radiation
monitoring, health surveillance and the management of contaminated foodstuffs and othercommodities are described in this context.
An appendix summarizes past experience withlong-term contaminated areas resulting fromradiological events and nuclear accidents including radiological criteria followed in carrying out remediation measures. The report wasapproved by the Main Commission in October
2008 for publication.

Task Group 76 on the applicationof the Commission’s Recommendations to NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials)
Chair: Dr. Peter Burns (previously Dr. Mary
Clark)
This Task Group was approved by the Main
Commission in Berlin in 2007. It’s objective isto develop a conceptual framework that provides a link between the system of radiation
protection (as described in Publications 103
and 104) and the detailed guidance requiredby international agencies and national authorities for the development of standards andguides related to management of risks due to
NORM in an effective and optimised manner.
The issue is complex as NORM activities may
be managed either as planned or as existing
exposure situations. A report containing recommendations on the processes that should
be adopted in the management of NORM industry is scheduled to be presented to theMain Commission for approval in 2010.

20

Task Group 71 on protection
principles for deliberate exposure
for security and legal requirements
In 2007 the Main Commission approved theterms of reference of this Task Group to include situations involving deliberate exposureof individuals for security and legal requirements where the benefit is generally for otherpersons than the exposed individuals. After adialogue with Committee 3 in 2006 and 2007,
it was decided that the issue is mainly within
the scope of Committee 4. In 2008, Committee 4 discussed what ICRP could do in addition to paragraph 210 of Publication 103 (“certain exposures should be deemed to be unjustified … unless there are exceptional circumstances”) and concluded that complementary
guidance may more usefully be provided byregulatory agencies. It was decided that
Committee 4 should keep aware of developments related to this issue and raise it again if
deviations were identified. Donald Cool was
designated as Committee 4 observer.

Working Party on the applicationof the Commission’s Recommendations to occupational exposure
Chair: Dr. Ann McGarry (previously Dr. Gustavo Massera)
This Working Party was created in 2007 to review the current status of occupational exposure in order to identify particular occupational
exposure situations which would benefit fromfurther guidance from ICRP. In 2008, Committee 4 considered a report prepared by CEPN
(France) as an input for the WP, reviewing occupational exposures in the various sectors(nuclear industry, medical sector, NORM industry) and comparing the risk associatedwith ionising radiation exposures with otheroccupational risks. It was concluded that the
WP would prepare a discussion paper providing more complete and consolidated data
with, if relevant, proposals for further guid-2006-2008
ance, and to discuss the paper with relevant
stakeholders. Upgrading the WP to a TG isunder consideration.

Working Party on ICRP International Outreach
Chair: Dr. Khammar Mrabit
The purpose of this WP, created in 2007, is tofacilitate the application of ICRP Recommendations and further promote the dialogue between ICRP and relevant professionals. Dueconsideration is given to the improvement of
the C4 web site, the development of a network
of ICRP Focal Points among professionals
particularly in developing countries, the development of a roster of “Experts on ICRP recommendations” (per theme and language)
and the development of a “database” of standard presentations as well as lectures on ICRP
recommendations and positions in different
languages.

C4/C5 Working Party on the application of the Commission’s
recommendations to Releases ofRadioactive Material in the Environment
Chair: Dr. Don Cool
The objectives of this Working party, createdin 2007, are to investigate, in collaboration
with Committee 5, the tools developed for protection of the environment in the context of the
ICRP system of protection for man by looking
at exposure scenarios where man is protected, and seeing what the predicted impact
was on flora and fauna, and then comparing
with the bands of protection suggested byCommittee 5. The work is in progress.

C1/C2/C4 Working Party on theuse of the quantity Effective Doseand of Dose Coefficients
Chair: Dr. John Cooper
Gathering members of Committees 2, 3 and 4,
this WP was approved by the Main Commission in 2007. Considering the importance ofthe concept of effective dose in the radiological protection system, the objective of the WP
is: 1) to provide guidance on when the quantity ‘effective dose’ should be used and whenit should not, if possible with alternatives forsituations where the quantity should not be
used; 2) to provide guidance on the use ofdose coefficients in estimating effective doseand on how to use foetal dose coefficients incomparisons with dose limits, constraints andreference levels, and; 3) to provide guidanceon calculating the contribution of non-uniform
skin exposure to effective dose.
The WP aims to provide a discussion paper in2010. Meanwhile, the Main Commission has
decided to upgrade the WP to a TG of theMain Commission chaired by John Cooper
who will become member of the Main Commission for the next ICRP mandate.

Standing Working Party on Interface with other Committees
Chair: Dr. John Cooper
Committee 4 also set provisions for the interface with other Committees. A standing Working Party was formed to include Committee 4
members who follow the work of the otherCommittees: Michiaki Kai (C1), Peter Burns(C2), Wolfgang Weiss (C3), Kirsti-Liisa
Sjöblom (C5).

21

2006-2008

COMMITTEE 5 (PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT)
Committee 5 is concerned with radiological protection of the environment. It will aim to ensure thatthe development and application of approaches to environmental protection are compatible withthose for radiological protection of man, and with those for protection of the environment from otherpotential hazards.

Committee 5 Members in Berlin, 2007
Committee 5 first met in 2005 and immediately
set to work on developing a basis for providing advice with regard to protection of the environment, following on from ICRP 91, which
had concluded that a broader frameworkneeded to be developed, and that it should be
sufficiently flexible to be applied within thecontext of the many existing and varied global
approaches to environmental management
generally, and to environmental protection inparticular. It had also concluded that such an
approach should relate as closely as possible
to the current system for human radiologicalprotection, based on a clear understanding of
the relationships between exposure and dose,and dose and effect, and that this objective
could best be met by the development of alimited number of Reference Animals andPlants. The Committee also used, as its basematerial, the work of a second Task Group
which had already been put out for public
consultation, plus the responses that had
been received. This work included a first con-22

sideration of the types of Reference Animals
and Plants that could be used by the ICRP;
the types of dose models relevant to them; therange of existing information on radiation effects for such types of organisms; how suchan approach could be used for assessing andmanaging different levels of radiation exposure in non-human species; and how it could
be harmonised with the Commission’s existing
approach to the protection of human beings.
One aspect that could clearly be advanced
relatively quickly was that of bringing morerigour to the basic approach of modelling dosimetry. Committee 5 therefore established its
own Task Group on Reference Animal and
Plant dosimetric modelling, chaired by
G. Prӧhl, with the objectives of summarizing
current modelling approaches and then, after
selecting and justifying a preferred approach,using it to calculate a set of dose conversion
factors with respect to external and internal
exposure pathways. The results were incorpo-

2006-2008
rated into a more comprehensive report on theconcept and use of Reference Animals andPlants. An initial draft of this report was discussed by the Main Commission in 2007 andthen posted on the ICRP’s web site for consultation in January 2008. Many valuable comments were received and these have beentaken fully into account in the production of
the final document which will be published (asICRP 108) in 2009.
The report introduces the concept of Reference Animals and Plants, defines a small setof them, and discusses their pathways of exposure. It collates and discusses the adequacy of the best available data relating totheir dosimetry, at different stages of their life
cycle, and further develops and uses this information to derive sets of tabulated data
(Dose Conversion Factors, in terms of µGy
day−1 per Bq kg−1) that allow the dose to be
calculated for 75 radionuclides that may be
within, or external to, each organism. It thenreviews what is known about the effects ofradiation upon such biotic types (or of organisms similar to them, where more precise data
are lacking) and thus derives a set of Derived
Consideration Reference Levels (DCRLs) for
each biotic type in order to help optimise thelevel of effort that might be expended on theenvironmental protection of them, or to similartypes of organisms. The various factors thatshould be taken into account when considering what to do if such DCRLs are attained or
exceeded is also briefly discussed.
A Working Party was also set up, chaired by
F Brechignac, to explore and examine the interface with, and relevance to, other approaches to environmental protection, in orderto ensure that the Committee’s approach iscompatible with them, or justifiably different,
and to advise with regard to the application of
the ICRP approach to different exposure situations and different environmental management
objectives.
Other issues currently being examined byCommittee 5 are the derivation of a complementary set of environmental transfer factors
relevant to modelling the exposure of Reference Animals and Plants under different exposure situations, the relevance or otherwise of
the concept of radiation weighting factors andRBE to Reference Animals and Plants, and theneed for more advanced dosimetry for someof the larger animals and plants.
Sadly one of the members of Committee 5,
Dr. M Doi, died suddenly in 2006; he was succeeded by K. Sakai. The Committee is deeply
indebted to the contributions made by Dr. Doi
to this subject, and wishes to record its thanks
and admiration for his contributions.

23

2006-2008

ICRP PUBLICATIONS 2006-2008
Ten reports were published in the Annals of the ICRP in 2006 – 2008:•

Publication 99: Low-dose Extrapolation of Radiation-related Cancer Risk;•

Publication 100: Human Alimentary Tract Model for Radiological Protection;•

Publication 101: Assessing Dose of the Representative Person for the Purpose of Radiation Protection of the Public and The Optimisation of Radiological Protection: Broadening the Process(two reports in one issue);•

Publication 102: Managing Patient Dose in Multi-Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT);•

Publication 103: The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on RadiologicalProtection;•

Publication 104: Scope of Radiological Protection Control Measures;•

Publication 105: Radiological Protection in Medicine;•

Publication 106: Radiation Dose to Patients from Radiopharmaceuticals (Addendum 3 to ICRP
Publication 53); and,•Supporting Guidance 5: Analysis of the Criteria Used by the International Commission on Radiological Protection to Justify the Setting of Numerical Protection Level Values.

•

Publication 107: Nuclear Decay Data for Dosimetric Calculations.

•Publication 108: Environmental Protection: the Concept and Use of Reference Animals andPlants.

The latter two reports complete the 2008 publication year of the Annals of ICRP, but will be released
in 2009.

Publication 99: Low-dose Extrapolation of Radiation-related Cancer Risk

This report considers the evidence relating tocancer risk associated with exposure to low
doses of low linear energy transfer radiation,and particularly doses below current recommended limits for protection of radiation workers and the general public. The focus is on
evidence regarding linearity of the dose–24

response relationship for all cancers considered as a group, but not necessarily individually, at low doses [the so-called linear, nonthreshold (LNT) hypothesis]. It looks at thepossibility of establishing a universal thresholddose below which there is no risk of radiationrelated cancer. The report is organised by scientific discipline, beginning with epidemiological studies of exposed human populations.
Extrapolation of risk estimates based on observations at moderate to high doses continues to be the primary basis for estimation ofradiation-related risk at low doses and dose
rates. The fundamental role of radiationinduced DNA damage in the induction of mutations and chromosome aberrations provides
a framework for the analysis of risks at low
radiation doses and low-dose-rate exposures.
Although cells have a vast array of damage

2006-2008
response mechanisms, these mechanisms are
not foolproof, and it is clear that damaged oraltered cells are capable of escaping thesepathways and propagating. Cellular consequences of radiation-induced damage include
chromosome aberrations and somatic cell mutations. Current understanding of mechanisms
and quantitative data on dose and time–dose
relationships support the LNT hypothesis.
Emerging results with regard to radiationrelated adaptive responses, genomic instability, and bystander effects suggest that the riskof low-level exposure to ionising radiation is
uncertain, and a simple extrapolation fromhigh-dose effects may not be wholly justified in
all instances. However, although there are intrinsic uncertainties at low doses and low dose
rates, direct epidemiological measures of radiation cancer risk necessarily reflect allmechanistic contributions including those frominduced genomic instability, bystander effects,
and, in some cases, adaptive responses, andtherefore may provide insights about thesecontributions. Experimental approaches using
animal models support the view that the response for early initiating events is likely tocorrespond to that for the induction of cytogenetic damage. On this basis, mechanistic arguments support a linear response in the lowdose region. Quantitative analyses of dose

responses for tumourigenesis and for life
shortening in laboratory animals also support
this prediction. These studies also support adose and dose rate effectiveness factor(DDREF) in the range of about 2 when data
are extrapolated to low doses from effects induced by doses in the range of 2–3 Gy. A formal quantitative uncertainty analysis combines
the different uncertain components of estimated radiation-related cancer risk with andwithout allowing for the uncertain possibility ofa universal low-dose threshold. Unless theexistence of a threshold is assumed to be virtually certain, the effect of introducing the uncertain possibility of a threshold is equivalent
to that of an uncertain increase in the value of
DDREF, i.e. merely a variation on the result
obtained by ignoring the possibility of athreshold.
The report concludes that while existence of alow-dose threshold does not seem to beunlikely for radiation-related cancers of certain
tissues, the evidence does not favour the existence of a universal threshold. The LNT hypothesis, combined with an uncertain DDREF
for extrapolation from high doses, remains a
prudent basis for radiation protection at low
doses and low dose rates.

Publication 100: Human Alimentary Tract Model for Radiological Protection
In this report, the ICRP provides a new biokinetic and dosimetric model of the human alimentary tract to replace the Publication 30
model. The new human alimentary tract model(HATM) will be used together with the humanrespiratory tract model (HRTM) in future ICRP
publications on doses from ingested and inhaled radionuclides.
The HATM is applicable to all situations of radionuclide intake by children and adults. It
provides age-dependent parameter values forthe dimensions of the alimentary tract regions,and associated transit times for the movementof materials through these regions. For adults,
gender-dependent parameter values are given
for dimensions and transit times. The default
assumption is that radionuclide absorption
takes place in the small intestine, but themodel allows for absorption in other regions
and for retention in or on tissues within thealimentary tract when information is available.
Doses are calculated to target cells for cancer
induction in the oral cavity, oesophagus,
stomach, small intestine, and colon.

25

2006-2008
This report provides reviews of information on
the transit of materials through the alimentarytract and on radionuclide retention and absorption. It considers data on health effects,
principally in order to specify the target cells
for cancer induction within the mucosal liningof the tract and to justify approaches taken todose averaging within regions. Comparisons
are made between doses calculated using the
HATM and the Publication 30 model for examples of radionuclide ingestion for which absorption is assumed to occur in the small intestine alone. Examples are also given of theeffect on doses of considering absorption fromother regions and the effect of possible retention in the alimentary tract. This report also
considers uncertainties in model assumptions
and their effect on doses, including alimentarytract dimensions, transit times, radionuclide
absorption values, and the location of targets
for cancer induction.

Publication 101: Assessing Dose of the Representative Person for the
Purpose of Radiation Protection of the Public
ply 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 protectionof the public is achieved if the relevant dose
constraint for this individual for a single sourceis met and radiological protection is optimised.
The Commission intended that its revised recommendations should be based on a simple,
but widely applicable, system of protectionthat would clarify its objectives and provide abasis for the more formal systems needed byoperating managers and regulators. The recommendations would establish quantified
constraints, or limits, on individual dose from
specified sources. These dose constraints ap-

26

This report explains the process of estimating
annual dose and recognises that a number ofdifferent methods are available for this purpose. These methods range from deterministic
calculations to more complex probabilistic
techniques. In addition, a mixture of thesetechniques may be applied. In selecting characteristics of the representative person, three2006-2008
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 ofdetail 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 andwith 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 1year-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 thatthe probability is less than about 5% that aperson drawn at random from the population
will receive a greater dose. If such an assessment indicates that a few tens of people ormore 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 ofpeople are indeed likely to exceed the relevant
dose constraint, actions to modify the exposure should be considered.
The Commission recognises the role thatstakeholders can play in identifying characteristics of the representative person. Involvement of stakeholders can significantly improve
the quality, understanding, and acceptabilityof the characteristics of the representative person and the resulting estimated dose.

Publication 101: The Optimisation of Radiological Protection: Broadening
the Process
The principle of optimisation of radiation protection is defined by the Commission as thesource-related process to keep the magnitudeof 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 throughan ongoing, cyclical process that involves theevaluation of the exposure situation to identify
the need for action, the identification of thepossible protective options to keep the exposure as low as reasonably achievable, the selection of the best option under the prevailingcircumstances, 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 inwhich 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.

27

2006-2008

This report is a consolidation and an evolutionof the Commission’s recommendations concerning the optimisation principle. After somebackground information on the foundation andevolution of the principle, this report describes
the main characteristics of the process, ad-dresses the issue of exposure distribution inthat 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 of Publication 101.

Publication 102: Managing Patient Dose in Multi-Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT)
Computed tomography (CT) technology haschanged considerably in recent years with theintroduction of increasing numbers of multiple
detector arrays. There are several parametersspecific to multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) scanners that increase or decrease patient dose systematically comparedto older single detector computed tomography(SDCT) scanners.
This document briefly reviews the MDCT technology, radiation dose in MDCT, including differences from SDCT and factors that affectdose, radiation risks, and the responsibilities
for patient dose management. The document
recommends that users need to understandthe relationship between patient dose and image quality and be aware that image quality in
CT is often higher than that necessary for diagnostic confidence.

appropriately specified by the user, and suited
to the clinical task, there will be a reduction inpatient dose for most patients. Understandingof some parameters is not intuitive and theselection of image quality parameter values in
AEC systems is not straightforward.
Examples of some clinical situations havebeen included to demonstrate dose management, e.g. CT examinations of the chest, theheart for coronary calcium quantification andnon-invasive coronary angiography, colonography, the urinary tract, children, pregnant
patients, trauma cases, and CT guided interventions. CT is increasingly being used to replace conventional x-ray studies and it is important that patient dose is given careful consideration, particularly with repeated or multiple examinations.

Automatic exposure control (AEC) does nottotally free the operator from selection of scanparameters, and awareness of individual systems is important. Scanning protocols cannot
simply be transferred between scanners fromdifferent manufacturers and should be determined for each MDCT. If the image quality is

Publication 103: The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection
These revised Recommendations for a System
of Radiological Protection formally replace theCommission’s previous, 1990, Recommendations; and update, consolidate, and develop

28

the additional guidance on the control of exposure from radiation sources issued since
1990.

2006-2008
Thus, the present Recommendations update
the radiation and tissue weighting factors in
the quantities equivalent and effective doseand update the radiation detriment, based on
the latest available scientific information of thebiology and physics of radiation exposure.
They maintain the Commission’s three fundamental principles of radiological protection,
namely justification, optimisation, and the application of dose limits, clarifying how they
apply to radiation sources delivering exposureand to individuals receiving exposure.
The Recommendations evolve from the previous process-based protection approach using
practices and interventions by moving to an
approach based on the exposure situation.
They recognise planned, emergency, and ex-

isting exposure situations, and apply the fundamental principles of justification and optimisation of protection to all of these situations.
They maintain the Commission’s current individual dose limits for effective dose andequivalent dose from all regulated sources inplanned exposure situations. They reinforce
the principle of optimisation of protection,
which should be applicable in a similar way toall exposure situations, subject to the following
restrictions on individual doses and risks;dose and risk constraints for planned exposure situations, and reference levels for emergency and existing exposure situations. The
Recommendations also include an approachfor developing a framework to demonstrateradiological protection of the environment.

Publication 104: Scope of Radiological Protection Control Measures
In this report the Commission recommends
approaches to national authorities for theirdefinition of the scope of radiological protection control measures through regulations, byusing its principles of justification and optimisation. The report provides advice for deciding
the radiation exposure situations that should
be covered by the relevant regulations because their regulatory control can be justified,and, conversely, those that may be considered for exclusion from the regulations because their regulatory control is deemed to beunamenable and unjustified.
It also provides advice on the situations resulting from regulated circumstances but which
may be considered by regulators for exemption from complying with specific requirements
because the application of these requirements
is unwarranted and exemption is the optimum
option. Thus, the report describes exclusion
criteria for defining the scope of radiologicalprotection regulations, exemption criteria forplanned exposure situations, and the applica-tion of these concepts in emergency exposure
situations and in existing exposure situations.
The report also addresses specific exposure
situations such as exposure to low-energy or
low-intensity adventitious radiation, cosmic
radiation, naturally occurring radioactive materials, radon, commodities, and low-level radioactive waste. The quantitative criteria in thereport are intended only as generic suggestions to regulators for defining the regulatory
scope, in the understanding that the definitiveboundaries for establishing the situations thatcan be or need to be regulated will depend on
national approaches.

29

2006-2008

Publication 105: Radiological Protection in Medicine
This report was prepared to underpin theCommission’s 2007 Recommendations withregard to the medical exposure of patients,
including their comforters and carers, and volunteers in biomedical research. It addresses
the proper application of the fundamental
principles (justification, optimisation of protection, and application of dose limits) of theCommission’s 2007 Recommendations tothese individuals.

agement of the patient dose commensuratewith the medical task, are the appropriate
mechanisms to avoid unnecessary or unproductive radiation exposure. Equipment features that facilitate patient dose management,
and diagnostic reference levels derived at theappropriate national, regional, or local level,
are likely to be the most effective approaches.
In radiation therapy, the avoidance of accidents is a predominant issue.

With regard to medical exposure of patients, it
is not appropriate to apply dose limits or dose
constraints, because such limits would often
do more harm than good. Often, there areconcurrent chronic, severe, or even lifethreatening medical conditions that are morecritical than the radiation exposure. The emphasis is then on justification of the medical
procedures and on the optimisation of radiological protection.

With regard to comforters and carers, and volunteers in biomedical research, dose constraints are appropriate. Over the last decade,the Commission has published a number of
documents that provided detailed advice related to radiological protection and safety inthe medical applications of ionising radiation.
Each of the publications addressed a specifictopic defined by the type of radiation source
and the medical discipline in which the source
is applied, and was written with the intent ofcommunicating directly with the relevant
medical practitioners and supporting medical
staff. This report consolidates that advice.

In diagnostic and interventional procedures,
justification of procedures (for a defined purpose and for an individual patient), and man-

Publication 106: Radiation Dose to Patients from Radiopharmaceuticals(Addendum 3 to ICRP Publication 53)
In this report, the Commission provides biokinetic and dosimetric models for 33 radiopharmaceuticals, as well as recommendations
related to breast feeding for mothers who haveundergone a nuclear medicine investigation.
The report is based on Addenda 3–9 to Publication 53. Addenda 3–7 have been available
on the ICRP website (www.icrp.org) as interim
reports. The work has been carried out by a
Joint Task Group of ICRP Committees 2
and 3.

30

This publication provides biokinetic models,absorbed doses, and effective doses for thefollowing radiopharmaceuticals: 11C-acetate;
11
C-amino acids; 11C-brain receptor substances; 11C-methionine; 18F-amino acids;
18
F-FET; 18F-FDG; 111In-monoclonal antibodies/fragments; 123I-fatty acids (BMIPP, IPPA);
123
I-monoclonal
antibodies/fragments;
131
I-monoclonal antibodies/fragments; and201
Tl-ion. The publication also provides realistic
maximum models for 11C- and 18F-substances,
for which no specific models are available.

2006-2008

Supporting Guidance 5: Analysis of the Criteria Used by the International
Commission on Radiological Protection to Justify the Setting of NumericalProtection Level Values
This report compiles the various numericalprotection level values published by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) since its 1990 Recommendations(Publication 60). Several terms are used todenominate the protection levels: individual
dose limit, ‘maximum’ individual dose, dose
constraint, exemption level, exclusion level,
action level, or intervention level. The reasonsprovided by the Commission for selecting theassociated numerical values are quoted as far

as available. In some cases the rationale is nottotally explicit in the original ICRP report concerned; in such cases the Task Group that
prepared the present report have proposed
their own interpretation. Originally, this report
was prepared by a Task Group at CEPN, a
French research and development centre, on
behalf of IRSN, a French public expert bodyengaged in radiological protection and nuclear
safety. It is published here with kind permission by CEPN and IRSN.

ICRP Publication 107: Nuclear Decay Data for Dosimetric Calculations
In this report, the Commission provides anelectronic database of the physical dataneeded in calculations of radionuclide-specificprotection and operational quantities. This database supersedes the data of Publication 38(ICRP, 1983), and will be used in future ICRP
publications of dose coefficients for the intake
of or exposure to radionuclides in the workplace and the environment.
The database contains information on the halflives, decay chains, and yields and energies ofradiations emitted in nuclear transformationsof 1252 radionuclides of 97 elements. The CD
accompanying the publication provides elec-

tronic access to complete tables of the emitted
radiations, as well as the beta and neutron
spectra. The database has been constructed
such that user-developed software can extract
the data needed for further calculations of aradionuclide of interest.
A Windows-based application is provided todisplay summary information on a userspecified radionuclide, as well as the generalcharacterisation of the nuclides contained in
the database. In addition, the application provides a means by which the user can export
the emissions of a specified radionuclide foruse in subsequent calculations.

ICRP Publication 108: Environmental Protection: the Concept and Use ofReference Animals and Plants
In its latest recommendations for a system ofradiological protection, the Commission considered it necessary and appropriate tobroaden its scope in order to address, directly,
the subject of protection of the environment,
although it acknowledged that there is no
simple or single universal definition of ‘environmental protection’, and that the concept
differs between countries and from one cir-

cumstance to another. It is a very large andcomplicated subject. Nevertheless, the Commission did consider it appropriate to set out
some high-level ambitions with regard to environmental protection and the specific issue of
potential radiation effects, and thus included
within its general aims those of wishing to prevent or reduce the frequency of deleterious
radiation effects in the environment to a level312006-2008
where they would have a negligible impact on
the maintenance of biological diversity, theconservation of species, or the health andstatus of natural habitats, communities, andecosystems. It also recognised the needs ofsome national authorities to demonstrate, directly and explicitly, that the environment isbeing protected within their own legislative
frameworks.
The Commission also stated, however, that it
believed that its approach to environmental
protection should be commensurate with theoverall level of risk (and thus optimised), andthat it should be compatible with other approaches being made to protect the environment. Some form of numerical guidance istherefore necessary, and the Commission said
that it considered that such guidance – built
on a knowledge of the relationships between
exposure and dose, between dose and effect,and between effect and possible consequences – needed to be based on a soundscientific system similar to that developed forhuman protection, and that this could best be
achieved by the creation of a set of Reference
Animals and Plants.
This publication therefore introduces the concept of reference animals and plants, and defines a small set. It discusses their pathways of
exposure, and collates and discusses theadequacy of the best-available data relating totheir dosimetry at different stages of their life
cycles. In addition, this publication further develops and uses this information to derive setsof tabulated data (dose conversion factors, interms of μGy/day/Bq/kg) that allow the dose to
be calculated for 75 radionuclides that may be
within, or external to, each organism.

32

This publication reviews what is known about
the effects of radiation upon such biotic types(or of similar organisms, where more precise
data are lacking) with regard to the effects ofmortality, morbidity, reduced reproductive
success, and chromosomal damage. Drawing
on this information, the report derives a set ofderived consideration reference levels for eachbiotic type in order to help optimise the level ofeffort that might be expended on its environmental protection, or that of similar types oforganisms, and thus serve as points of reference in any wider consideration of what authorities may wish to do under different exposure situations. The various factors that should
be taken into account when considering what
to do if the derived consideration reference
levels are likely to be attained are also discussed.
Some broader background information on thetypes of animals and plants used is also. Additional information is provided on advice withregard to extrapolating and interpolating thelimited set of dosimetric models to othershapes and sizes of animals and plants.
The Commission acknowledges that, in many
circumstances, exposure to radiation is but
one factor to consider. It therefore intends toprovide high-level guidance and advice uponwhich regulators and operators may draw inorder to demonstrate compliance, where necessary, with the wide range of internationaland national environmental legislation that
already exists, or is likely to emerge in thenear future. It also intends to supplement thisintroductory report with additional relevant
data sets, and with further guidance on issues
such as radiation weighting factors.

2006-2008

COMPLETE LIST OF ICRP PUBLICATIONS IN THE FIRST 80
YEARS (1928-2008)(Fundamental recommendations are listed in bold, blue type)
ICRP Publication 108: Environmental Protection: the Concept and Use of Reference Animals and Plants, JAICRP 38(4-6), 2008.
ICRP Publication 107: Nuclear Decay Data for
Dosimetric Calculations, JAICRP 38(3), 2008.
ICRP Publication 106: Radiation Dose to Patients from Radiopharmaceuticals: Addendum
3 to ICRP Publication 53, JAICRP 38(1-2),
2008.
ICRP Publication 105: Radiological Protectionin Medicine, JAICRP 37(6), 2007.
ICRP Publication 104: Scope of RadiologicalProtection Control Measures, JAICRP 37(5),2007.
ICRP Publication 103: The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on
Radiological Protection, JAICRP 37(2-4), 2007.
ICRP Publication 102: Managing Patient Dosein Multi-Detector Computed Tomography(MDCT), JAICRP 37(1), 2007.
ICRP Publication SG5: Analysis of the Criteria
Used by the International Commission on Radiological Protection to Justify the Setting of
Numerical Protection Level Values, JAICRP
36(4), 2006.
ICRP Publication 101: The Optimisation of Radiological Protection: Broadening the Process,
JAICRP 36(3), 2006.
ICRP Publication 101: Assessing Dose of theRepresentative Person for the Purpose of Radiation Protection of the Public, JAICRP 36(3),2006.
ICRP Publication 100: Human Alimentary Tract
Model for Radiological Protection, JAICRP
36(1-2), 2006.
ICRP Publication 99: Low-dose Extrapolationof Radiation-related Cancer Risk, JAICRP
35(4), 2005.

ICRP Publication 98: Radiation safety aspectsof brachytherapy for prostate cancer using
permanently implanted sources, JAICRP
35(3), 2005.
ICRP Publication 97: Prevention of high-doserate brachytherapy accidents, JAICRP 35(2),2005.
ICRP Publication 96: Protecting people
against radiation exposure in the event of aradiological attack, JAICRP 35(1), 2005.
ICRP Publication SG4: Development of the
Draft 2005 recommendations of the ICRP: acollection of papers, JAICRP
34(Supplement 1), 2004.
ICRP Publication 95: Doses to infants fromradionuclides ingested in mothers’ milk,
JAICRP 34(3-4), 2004.
ICRP Publication 94: Release of Patients after
Therapy with Unsealed Radionuclides, JAICRP
34(2), 2004.
ICRP Publication 93: Managing patient dose indigital radiology, JAICRP 34(1), 2004.
ICRP Publication 92: Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE), Quality Factor (Q), and Radiation Weighting Factor (wR), JAICRP 33(4),2003.
ICRP Publication 91: A Framework for Assessing the Impact of Ionising Radiation on Nonhuman Species, JAICRP 33(3), 2003.
ICRP Publication 90: Biological Effects after
Prenatal Irradiation (Embryo and Foetus),
JAICRP 33(1-2), 2003.
ICRP Publication 89: Basic Anatomical andPhysiological Data for Use in Radiological Protection: Reference Values, JAICRP 32(3-4),
2002.
ICRP Publication SG3: Guide for the Practical
Application of the ICRP Human Respiratory
Tract Model, JAICRP 32(1-2), 2002.

33

2006-2008

ICRP Publication SG2: Radiation and your patient: A guide for medical practitioners,
JAICRP 31(4), 2001.

ICRP Publication 76: Protection from Potential
Exposures: Selected Radiation Sources,
JAICRP 27(2), 1997.

ICRP Publication 88: Doses to the Embryo andFoetus from Intakes of Radionuclides by theMother, JAICRP 31(1-3), 2001.

ICRP Publication 75: General Principles for the
Radiation Protection of Workers, JAICRP
27(1), 1997.

ICRP Publication 87: Managing Patient Dosein Computed Tomography, JAICRP 30(4),2000.

ICRP Publication 74: Conversion Coefficientsfor Use in Radiological Protection, JAICRP
26(3-4), 1996.

ICRP Publication 86: Prevention of accidental
exposures to patients undergoing radiation
therapy, JAICRP 30(3), 2000.

ICRP Publication 73: Radiological Protection in
Safety and Medicine, JAICRP 26(2), 1996.

ICRP Publication 85: Avoidance of Radiation
Injuries from Medical Interventional Procedures, JAICRP 30(2), 2000.
ICRP Publication 84: Pregnancy and Medical
Radiation, JAICRP 30(1), 2000.
ICRP Publication 83: Risk Estimation for Multifactorial Diseases, JAICRP 29(3-4), 1999.
ICRP Publication 82: Protection of the Publicin Situations of Prolonged Radiation Exposure:
The Application of the Commission's System
of Radiological Protection to Controllable Radiation Exposure Due to Natural Sources andLong-lived Radioactive Residues, JAICRP
29(1-2), 1999.
International Commission on Radiological Protection: History, policies, procedures, JAICRP
28(Supplement 1), 1998.
ICRP Publication 81: Radiation Protection
Recommendations as Applied to the Disposalof Long-lived Solid Radioactive Waste, JAICRP
28(4), 1998.
ICRP Publication 80: Radiation Dose to Patients from Radiopharmaceuticals: Addendum
2 to ICRP Publication 53, JAICRP 28(3), 1998.
ICRP Publication 79: Genetic Susceptibility to
Cancer, JAICRP 28(1-2), 1998.
ICRP Publication 78: Individual Monitoring forInternal Exposure of Workers, JAICRP 27(3-4),
1997.
ICRP Publication 77: Radiological Protection
Policy for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste,
JAICRP 27(supplement 1).

34

ICRP Publication 72: Age-Dependent Dosesfrom Intakes of Radionuclides, JAICRP 26(1),1996.
ICRP Publication 71: Age-Dependent Doses toMembers of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides: Part 4 Inhalation Dose Coefficients, JAICRP 25(3-4), 1995.
ICRP Publication 70: Basic Anatomical andPhysiological Data: The Skeleton, JAICRP
25(2), 1995.
ICRP Publication 69: Age-Dependent Dosesfrom Intake of Radionuclides: Part 3, JAICRP
25(1), 1995.
ICRP Publication 68: Dose Coefficients for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers, JAICRP
24(4), 1994.
ICRP Publication 67: Age-Dependent Dosesfrom Intake of Radionuclides: Part 2, JAICRP
23(3-4), 1993.
ICRP Publication 66: The Human Respiratory
Tract Model, JAICRP 24(1-3), 1994.
ICRP Publication 65: Protection against Radon-222, JAICRP 23(2), 1993.
ICRP Publication 64: Protection from Potential
Exposure, JAICRP 23(1), 1993.
ICRP Publication 63: Principles for Intervention
for Protection of the Public, JAICRP 22(4),1991.
ICRP Publication 62: Radiological Protection in
Biomedical Research, JAICRP 22(3), 1991.

2006-2008
ICRP Publication SG1: Risk Estimates for Carcinogenic Effects, JAICRP 22(1), 1991.
ICRP Publication 61: ALIs Based on the 1990
Recommendations, JAICRP 21(4), 1991.
ICRP Publication 60: 1990 Recommendationsof the International Commission on Radiological Protection, JAICRP 21(1-3), 1991.
ICRP Publication 59: The Biological Basis for
Dose Limitation in the Skin, JAICRP 22(2),1991.
ICRP Publication 58: RBE for Deterministic
Effects, JAICRP 20(4), 1989.
ICRP Publication 57: Radiological Protectionof the Worker in Medicine and Dentistry,
JAICRP 20(3), 1989.
ICRP Publication 56: Age-Dependant Dosesfrom Intakes of Radionuclides: Part 1, JAICRP
20(2), 1989.
ICRP Publication 55: Optimization and Decision-Making in Radiological Protection,
JAICRP 20(1), 1989.
ICRP Publication 54: Individual Monitoring for
Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers, JAICRP
19(1-3), 1988.
ICRP Publication 53: Biokinetics and Dosimetry: General Considerations, JAICRP
18(1-4), 1987.
ICRP Publication 52: Protection of the Patientin Nuclear Medicine, JAICRP 17(4), 1987.
ICRP Publication 51: Data for Use in Protection against External Radiation, JAICRP
17(2-3), 1987.
ICRP Publication 50: Lung Cancer Risk from
Indoor Exposures to Radon Daughters,
JAICRP 17(1), 1987.
ICRP Publication 49: Developmental Effects ofIrradiation of the Brain of the Embryo and Foetus, JAICRP 16(4), 1986.
ICRP Publication 48: The Metabolism of Plutonium and Related Elements, JAICRP 16(2-3),
1986.
ICRP Publication 47: Radiation Protection ofWorkers in Mines, JAICRP 16(1), 1986.

ICRP Publication 46: Principles for the Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste, JAICRP
15(4), 1985.
ICRP Publication 45: Developing a Unified Index of Harm, JAICRP 15(3), 1985.
ICRP Publication 44: Protection of the Patientin Radiation Therapy, JAICRP 15(2), 1985.
ICRP Publication 43: Principles of Monitoring
for the Radiation Protection of the Population,
JAICRP 15(1), 1985.
ICRP Publication 42: A Compilation of the Major Concepts and Quantities in Use by ICRP,JAICRP 14(4), 1984.
ICRP Publication 41: Nonstochastic Effects of
Ionizing Radiation, JAICRP 14(3), 1984.
ICRP Publication 40: Statement from the 1984
Stockholm Meeting of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, JAICRP
14(2), 1984.
ICRP Publication 39: Principles for Limiting
Exposure of the Public to Natural Sources ofRadiation, JAICRP 14(1), 1984.
ICRP Publication 38: Radionuclide Transformations, JAICRP 11-13, 1983.
ICRP Publication 37: Cost-Benefit Analysis in
the Optimization of Radiation Protection,
JAICRP 10(2-3), 1983.
ICRP Publication 36: Protection against Ionizing Radiation in the Teaching of Science,
JAICRP 10(1), 1983.
ICRP Publication 35: General Principles ofMonitoring for Radiation Protection of Workers, JAICRP 9(4), 1982.
ICRP Publication 34: Protection of the Patientin Diagnostic Radiology, JAICRP 9(2-3), 1982.
ICRP Publication 33: Protection against Ionizing Radiation from External Sources used in
Medicine, JAICRP 9(1), 1982.
ICRP Publication 32: Limits for Inhalation ofRadon Daughters by Workers, JAICRP 6(1),
1981.

35

2006-2008
ICRP Publication 31: Biological Effects of Inhaled Radionuclides, JAICRP 4(1-2), 1980.

ICRP Publication 16: Protection of the Patientin X-Ray Diagnosis (1969).

ICRP Publication 30: Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers, JAICRP, 19(4), 1988;
8(4), 1982; 8(1-3), 1982; 7(1-3), 1982; 6(2-3),
1981; 5(1-6), 1981; 4(3-4), 1980; 4(3-4), 1980;
3(1-4), 1979; and 2(3-4), 1979.

ICRP Publication 15: Protection against Ionizing Radiation from External Sources (1969).

ICRP Publication 29: Radionuclide Release
into the Environment: Assessment of Doses toMan, JAICRP 2(2), 1979.

ICRP Publication 13: Radiation Protection in
Schools for Pupils up to the Age of 18 Years(1968).

ICRP Publication 28: Principles for Handling
Emergency and Accidental Exposures ofWorkers, JAICRP 2(1), 1978.

ICRP Publication 12: General Principles ofMonitoring for Radiation Protection of Workers(1968).

ICRP Publication 27: Problems Involved in Developing an Index of Harm, JAICRP 1(4), 1977.

ICRP Publication 11: A Review of the Radiosensitivity of the Tissues in Bone (1967).

ICRP Publication 26: Recommendations of theInternational Commission on Radiological Protection, JAICRP 1(3), 1977.

ICRP Publication 10: Evaluation of Radiation
Doses to Body Tissues from Internal Contamination due to Occupational Exposure (1968).

ICRP Publication 25: Handling, Storage, Use,and Disposal of Unsealed Radionuclides,
JAICRP 1(2), 1977.

ICRP Publication 9: Recommendations of theInternational Commission on Radiological Protection (Adopted September 17, 1965).

ICRP Publication 24: Radiation Protection in
Uranium and other Mines, JAICRP 1(1), 1977.

ICRP Publication 8: The Evaluation of Risks
from Radiation (1965).

ICRP Publication 23: Report of the Task Groupon Reference Man (1975).

ICRP Publication 7: Principles of Environmental Monitoring related to the Handling ofRadioactive Materials (1965).

ICRP Publication 22: Implications of Commission Recommendations that Doses be kept as
Low as Readily Achievable (1973).
ICRP Publication 21: Data for Protection
against Ionizing Radiation from External
Sources: Supplement to ICRP Publication 15(1973).
ICRP Publication 20: Alkaline Earth Metabolism in Adult Man (1973).
ICRP Publication 19: The Metabolism of Compounds of Plutonium and other Actinides(1972).
ICRP Publication 18: The RBE for High-LET
Radiations with Respect to Mutagenesis(1972).
ICRP Publication 17: Protection of the Patientin Radionuclide Investigations (1971).

36

ICRP Publication 14: Radiosensitivity and Spatial Distribution of Dose (1969).

ICRP Publication 6: Recommendations of theInternational Commission on Radiological Protection (As Amended 1959 and Revised 1962)(1964).
ICRP Publication 5: Handling and Disposal ofRadioactive Materials in Hospitals and Medical
Research Establishments (1964).
ICRP Publication 4: Protection against Electromagnetic Radiation above 3 MeV and Electrons, Neutrons and Protons (1964).
ICRP Publication 3: Report of Committee III on
protection against X-rays up to energies of
3 MeV and beta- and gamma-rays from sealed
sources (1960).
ICRP Publication 2: Report of Committee II on
permissible dose for internal radiation (1959).

2006-2008
ICRP Publication 1: Recommendations of theInternational Commission on Radiological Protection: As Amended 1959 and Revised 1962.
Report on Decisions at the 1959 Meeting of
the International Commission on RadiologicalProtection (ICRP).
Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection: Adopted
September 9, 1958.
Report on Amendments during 1956 to the
Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection: Revised
December 1954.

International Recommendations on Radiological Protection: Revised by the International
Commission on Radiological Protection at the
Sixth International Congress of Radiology,
London, July 1950.
International Recommendations for X-Ray andRadium Protection: Revised by the International X-Ray and Radium Protection Commission at the Fifth International Congress of Radiology, Chicago, September 1937.
International Recommendations for X-Ray andRadium Protection: Revised by the International X-Ray and Radium Protection Commission at the Fourth International Congress ofRadiology, Zürich, July 1934.
International Recommendations for X-Ray andRadium Protection: Stockholm 1929.

37

2006-2008

OBTAINING ICRP PUBLICATIONSICRP Publications are available from reputable booksellers or directly from the Commission’s publishers, Elsevier Science:
Web sites:www.elsevier.com
www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00742740 (for ICRP Publication 23 and earlier)www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01466453 (for ICRP Publication 24 and later)
www.icrp.info

Questions to Elsevier Science regarding print subscriptions should be directed to:Americas
Journals Customer Service
Tel: (877) 839-7126 (Toll Free US & Canada)
Tel: (314) 453-7041 (Outside US & Canada)
Fax: (314) 453-5170
E-mail: JournalsOnlineSupport-usa@elsevier.com
Europe, Africa, Middle East
Customer Service Department
PO Box 211
1000 AE Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20-485-3757
Fax: +31 20-485-3432
E-mail: JournalsCustomerServiceEMEA@elsevier.com
Asia and Australia
Customer Service Department
Winsland House I
3 Killiney Road #08-01
Singapore 239519
Tel: +65 6349-0222
Fax: +65 6733-1510
E-mail: JournalsCustomerServiceAPAC@elsevier.com
Japan
Customer Service Department
4F Higashi Azabu, 1 Chome Bldg
1-9-15 Higashi Azabu, Minato-ku
Tokyo 106-0044, Japan
Tel: +81 3 5561 5037
Fax: +81 3 5561 5047
E-mail: JournalsCustomerServiceJapan@elsevier.com
An index to all ICRP publications, with links to Science Direct and www.icrp.info, can also be found on
the ICRP web site (www.icrp.org) at http://www.icrp.org/annals_list.asp.

38

2006-2008

COMPOSITION OF ICRP AND ITS COMMITTEES 2006-2008
MAIN COMMISSION
L-E Holm (Chair)

R J Preston (C1 Chair)

F A Mettler

R Cox (Vice-Chair)

Y SasakiW K SinclairJ D Boice

N Shandala

C Streffer

C Cousins (C3 Chair)

C Streffer (C2 Chair to 2007)

H G Menzel (C2 Chair from 2007)

A Sugier (C4 Chair)

Scientific Secretary
J Valentin

A J González
J-K Lee

Emeritus Members:

C Clement*

Z Q Pan

R H Clarke*as of December 2008

J Pentreath (C5 Chair)

B Lindell

COMMITTEE 1 (RADIATION EFFECTS)
R J Preston (Chair)

W F Morgan

R ShoreR Ullrich (Vice-Chair)

C Muirhead

F Stewart

J Hendry (Secretary)

O NiwaM Tirmarche

A Akleyev

D PrestonP-K Zhou

M Blettner

E Ron

R Chakraborty

W RühmCOMMITTEE 2 (DOSES FROM RADIATION EXPOSURES)H G Menzel (Chair from 2007)

W BolchJ Lipsztein

C Streffer (Chair to 2007)

A Bouville

F Paquet

J Stather (Vice-Chair)

G Dietze

H Paretzke

J D Harrison (Secretary)

K F Eckerman

A S Pradhan

M Balonov

N Ishigure

Y ZhouV Berkovski

P Jacob

COMMITTEE 3 (PROTECTION IN MEDICINE)
C Cousins (Chair)

Y Li

M Rehani

J-M Cosset (Vice-Chair)J Liniecki

H Ringertz

E Vañó (Secretary)

S Mattsson

M Rosenstein

I Gusev

P Ortiz-Lopez

C Sharp (to 2006)

J Hopewell (from 2007)

L Pinillos-Ashton

Y Yonekura

39

2006-2008

COMMITTEE 4 (APPLICATION OF THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS)
A Sugier (Chair)

D Cool

M Savkin

J Cooper (Vice-Chair)

H Liu

K-L Sjöblom

J-F Lecomte (Secretary)

J Lochard

W WeissP A Burns

G Massera

A TselaP Carboneras Martinez

A McGarry

M E Clark

K Michiaki

COMMITTEE 5 (PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT)40

J Pentreath (Chair)

M Doi (to 2007)

K Sakai (from 2007)

C-M Larsson (Vice-Chair)

A Johnston

P StrandK Higley (Secretary)

A Real Gallego

F Bréchignac

G Pröhl

2006-2008

ICRP CHAIRS AND SCIENTIFIC SECRETARIES IN THE FIRST 80
YEARS (1928-2008)
Chairs of the Commission
1928-1931

Rolf Sievert

Sweden1931-1937

René Ledoux-Lebard

France1937-1950

Lauriston Taylor

USA

1950-1956

Sir Ernest Rock CarlingUK

1956-1962

Rolf Sievert

Sweden1962-1969

Sir Edward PochinUK

1969-1977

Gordon Stewart

Canada1977-1985

Bo Lindell

Sweden1985-1993

Dan Beninson

Argentina

1993-2005

Roger ClarkeUK

2005-2009

Lars-Erik Holm

SwedenScientific Secretaries of the Commission
1950

Lauriston Taylor

USA

1950-1955

Walter Binks

UK

1956

Eric SmithUK

1957-1962

Bo Lindell

Sweden1962-1985* David Sowby

Canada1985-1987

Mike ThorneUK

1987-1997

Hylton SmithUK

1997-2008

Jack Valentin

Sweden2008-

Christopher Clement

Canada*The position of ICRP Scientific Secretary first became full-time in 196241

2006-2008

SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION 2004-2008
Summary of ICRP Annual Accounts for the 5-year Period 2004 – 2008
ITEM

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Grants Received

412 100

472 703231 592

310 100

300 422

Royalties

84 596

112 589

127 176

88 048117 211

Interest

5 935

14 99615 86211 605

8 678

Other Income

1 516

925

1 044

861

1 156

504 147

601 213375 674

410 614427 827

Promotion of Radiological Protection

326 444386 541361 434

229 876

248 494

Governance Costs

140 175

152 942145 498

165 526

179 926

Other Resources Expended

33 418(13 079)(35 396)

31 796(32 851)

Total Resources Expended

500 037

526 404

471 536427 198

395 569

Net Movement in Resources

4 110

74 809(95 862)(16 584)

32 258

Total Funds Carried Forward

503 922499 882425 073520 935

537 519

3 109

1 516

2 895

4 562

2 884

520 130509 000

439 149535 217545 943

9 166

2 375

74

0

11 173

Total Assets

529 296511 375

439 223539 779

560 000

Creditors (falling due within the year)(28 413)(13 009)(17 045)(18 884)(22 481)

Net Assets

503 992

499 882425 073520 935

537 519

INCOME STATEMENT
Incoming Resources

Total Incoming Resources

Resources Expended

BALANCE SHEET
AssetsTangible Fixed Assets
Cash Held at Bank and in Hand
Debtors and Prepayments

All amounts expressed in USD

This table is summary of the annual financial statements of ICRP as audited by Tudor John Chartered
Accountants, Epsom, UK.

42

2006-2008

ORGANISATIONS PROVIDING GRANTS TO ICRP 2006-2008
Commission of European Communities
International Atomic Energy Agency
International Radiation Protection Association
International Society of Radiology
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
Australia: Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
Canada: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
China: Chinese Society of Radiation Protection
Denmark: National Board of Health
Finland: Säteilyturvakeskus
France: Institut de Protection et de Sûreté Nucléaire
Germany: Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit
Iceland: Geislavarnir Rikisins
Japan: Japan Atomic Energy Agency
Norway: Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority
Russia: Burnasyan Federal Medical Biohysical Center, Federal Medical Biological Agency
Spain: Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear
Sweden: Miljödepartementet
USA: Nuclear Regulatory Commission & Environmental Protection Agency

43

2006-2008

CONTACT INFORMATION
Christopher Clement, ICRP Scientific Secretary and Editor of the Annals of the ICRP,
can be contacted at:
Christopher H. Clement CHP
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)PO Box 1046, Station B
280 Slater Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5S9
CANADA
Telephone:
Fax:
E-mail:Web site:44+1 (613) 944-1918+1 (613) 944-1920
sci.sec@icrp.org
www.icrp.org