LNT controversy is appearing again
and again in the scientific forums worldwide. In every forum it is said that
there is no concrete evidence and justification to accept LNT approach for
radiation protection purposes. Finally, it is said that in-spite of all the
controversies, LNT is accepted in the radiation protection system since it is
easier to manage the radiation doses, and for decision taking regarding w.r.t a
practice or procedure.
Why this is forced acceptance? And what cost? Billions of dollars?
As a well-informed radiation protection
professional, I am strongly of the opinion that:
1. ICRP has recommended one-year dose
limit of 50 mSv for occupational workers in the System of Dose Limitation. It
is assumed that there are no clinically observable biological effects up to a
dose of 100 mSv.
Accept 50 mSv as the threshold dose
for stochastic effect.
2. As a measure of good work practice,
optimise the occupational exposures in a dose band of 10 to 50 mSv/y.
Optimization to be carried out only up to a risk level keeping in view of the overall
risk in perspective.
[10
mSv is the annual dose accepted in radon at work places.]
