Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tightening Norms Again and Opening to the Public, 1965–2023

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Strengthening International Regimes

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in International Relations ((PSIR))

  • 10 Accesses

Abstract

During the twenty-five years from 1965 to 1990, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) again significantly tightened its basic radiation protection norms, both for workers in nuclear facilities and for the general population. This tightening was unexpected, as the Commission had thought its established norms adequate and perhaps too restrictive. The driver for lowering permissible doses was not the dozens of military accidents or even civilian incidents, the worst of which occurred at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The latter contributed to heightened public risk awareness, but the main public concern was radiation from routine reactor operations, amplified in professional circles by recalculation of doses delivered to Japanese survivors at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both professionals, especially radiation protection specialists, and the public feared low levels of lengthy radiation exposure would cause not only genetic effects but also cancer. The tightened norms would find acceptance not only in countries with technical capability and presence in the ICRP, but elsewhere as well. Universal application of norms continued to rely not on legal requirements or geographical diversity but rather on respect for independent epistemic authority. In the years since 1990, the ICRP has clarified its ethical bases and broadened stakeholder participation, shoring up its legitimacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Rolf M. Sievert, Chairman, “The International Commission on Radiological Protection,” ICRP Archives, Archive Files 12–22, Archive File 22, 1.8.57 to 31.12.57.pdf, 182–8, at 182.

  2. 2.

    “Insurance Against a Nuclear Accident,” in Lauriston Taylor, Organization for Radiation Protection: the Operations of the ICRP and NCRP, 1928–74, published by the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/TIC-10124, 1979, 7-057.

  3. 3.

    “Committee on Waste Disposal and Decontamination,” ibid., 7-063–6, at 7-063.

  4. 4.

    “Organization and Activities of the Subcommittee on Waste Disposal and Contamination,” ibid., 7-069–71, at 070.

  5. 5.

    Lauriston S. Taylor, Chairman NCRP to Donald B. Straus, Executive Secretary, President’s Commission on Labor Relations in Atomic Energy Installations, “Guidance in Establishing Benefit Policy for Hazardous Occupations in Atomic Energy,” ibid., 7-060–3, at 7-063.

  6. 6.

    “X-rays from Television Sets,” ICRP/53/6, ibid., 7-275–8.

  7. 7.

    Oosterkamp to Taylor, November 9, 1953, ibid., 7-284–5.

  8. 8.

    Kirke Malone letter March 26, 1968 at Taylor 10-071–2 and Taylor to Malone, May 15, 1968, ibid., 10-072–3.

  9. 9.

    Lindell B. The Toil of Sisyphus, Part IV. (1967–1999+): The Labours of Hercules, Part III (1950–66), Nordic Society for Radiation Protection; 2020.

  10. 10.

    International Atomic Energy Agency. Atoms for Peace Speech | IAEA [Internet]. Iaea.org. 2014. Text available from: https://www.iaea.org/about/history/atoms-for-peace-speech and video available from: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/multimedia/videos/atoms-peace-speech, accessed November 8, 2022.

  11. 11.

    Congressional Research Service. Price-Anderson Act: Nuclear Power Industry Liability Limits and Compensation to the Public After Radioactive Releases [Internet]. CRS Reports. 2018. Available from: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10821#:~:text=Congress%20responded%20in%201957%20by, accessed October 23, 2022.

  12. 12.

    IAEA. Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage | IAEA [Internet]. Iaea.org. 2014. Available from: https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-liability-conventions/vienna-convention-on-civil-liability-for-nuclear-damage, accessed October 23, 2022.

  13. 13.

    Taylor participated in this effort, see “Radiation Exposure in Reactor Emergencies,” Taylor, 9-160–70.

  14. 14.

    Lindell B. Depictions of Disasters in the 1950s. In: The Labours of Hercules, Part III (1950–66). Nordic Society for Radiation Protection; 2020:250–1.

  15. 15.

    The Need for Change: the Legacy of TMI, Report of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island. Washington, DC. 1979 Oct; http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/tran1/docs/188.pdf, accessed May 16, 2023.

  16. 16.

    Walker JS, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2004.

  17. 17.

    Park CC. Chernobyl. London and New York: Taylor & Francis; 1989. See also Chernobyl Radiation Live Map 2022 [Internet]. Surveying Group. 2022. Available from: https://surveyinggroup.com/chernobyl-radiation-map/, accessed May 4, 2023.

  18. 18.

    Llyin L, Pavlovskij O. Nuclear Power & Safety Radiological Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident in the Soviet Union and Measures Taken to Mitigate Their Impact Analysis of Data Confirms the Effectiveness of large-scale Actions to Limit the accident’s Effects [Internet]. IAEA Bulletin. April 1987. Available from: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull29-4/29402791724.pdf, accessed May 17, 2023.

  19. 19.

    Sumner D. Health Effects Resulting from the Chernobyl Accident. Medicine, Conflict and Survival. 2007 Jan;23(1):31–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13623690601084583, accessed December 12, 2022.

  20. 20.

    These are the main points in Brown K. Manual for Survival: a Chernobyl Guide to the Future. S.L.: W. W. Norton; 2020.

  21. 21.

    Lindell, note 9, “The Harrisburg Meeting with Very Concerned People,” 282–3.

  22. 22.

    “More Effective Emergency Preparedness,” ibid., 249.

  23. 23.

    Lindell, note 9, “Guests of WHO in Copenhagen,” 331–3, at 332.

  24. 24.

    Lindell reports the 20-year consequences of Chernobyl, ibid., 334–45.

  25. 25.

    For one Broken Arrow incident, see Dobson J. The Goldsboro Broken Arrow: the B-52 Crash of January 24, 1961, and Its Potential as a Tipping Point for Nuclear War. Lulu Publishing; 2013.

  26. 26.

    Oskins JC, Maggelet MH. Broken Arrow: The Declassified History of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accidents. Michel H. Maggelet and James C. Oskin; 2007.

  27. 27.

    Broken Arrows: Nuclear Weapons Accidents | atomicarchive.com [Internet]. www.atomicarchive.com. Available from: https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/broken-arrows/index.html, accessed October 23, 2022.

  28. 28.

    National Security Archive. Soviet Nuclear Submarine Carrying Nuclear Weapons Sank North of Bermuda in 1986 | National Security Archive [Internet]. nsarchive.gwu.edu. George Washington University; Available from: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/environmental-diplomacy-nuclear-vault-russia-programs/2016-10-07/soviet-nuclear, accessed October 23, 2022.

  29. 29.

    Rossi to Taylor, September 14, 1962, Taylor, note 2, 9-094.

  30. 30.

    “Parker to Taylor,” June 19, 1956, Taylor, note 2, 8-317.

  31. 31.

    Taylor, note 2, 8-329.

  32. 32.

    To Taylor from the Director of the Health Physics and Medical Section, Dow Chemical, “ICRP and NCRP Recommendations,” January 8, 1960, note 2, 9-313.

  33. 33.

    Karl Z. Morgan, “Some Topics for Consideration by the Executive Committee of NCRP from Subcommittee 2,” August 10, 1964, Taylor, note 2, 9-194–6.

  34. 34.

    “Revision of Handbook 59 (to Members SC-1),” NCRP/64/19, July 30, 1964, Taylor, note 2, 9-172–9.

  35. 35.

    Seltser R, Sartwell PE. The Influence of Occupational Exposure to Radiation on the Mortality of American Radiologists and Other Medical Specialists. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1965 Jan 1;81(1):2–22, accessed July 12, 2023. Life-shortening had been reported more than 10 years earlier by Warren S. Longevity and Causes of Death from Irradiation in Physicians. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1956 Sep 29;162(5):464. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1956.72970220006007, accessed July 12, 2023. The Shields Warren paper at the time did arouse questions inside the ICRP, but no changes to the recommendations: “Minutes of Joint Meeting ICRP-ICRU Revised,” ICRP/56/28 and ICRU/56/10, October 31, 1956, ICRP Archives Box W-18, Archive files 33, 177–8.

  36. 36.

    Taylor, quoting himself, note 2, 9-414.

  37. 37.

    The ICRP/ICRU/UN Study plans are documented at note 3, 9-314–23. The report appeared in 1961, ICRP-47.

  38. 38.

    The then-existing recommendations are helpfully summarized in “ICRP Recommendations on Maximum Permissible Doses for Non-Radiation Workers and Members of the General Public,” note 2, 9-340–42. The potential watering down is referred to in H. J. Muller’s note “to All Members of the Main Commission,” August 13, 1962, 9-372.

  39. 39.

    Muller to Pochin, February 12, 1065, ICRP Archives, Box W-18, Archive Files 29, 168–170.

  40. 40.

    Report from Committee V to the Commission. “The Application of the Recommendations of the ICRP to the Control of Activities Resulting in Environmental Contamination,” ICRP/62/S-9, May 11, 1962, note 3, 9-342–5.

  41. 41.

    “Report on the Meeting of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), April 1969,” Taylor, note 2, 10-338–40.

  42. 42.

    The earliest sign I have seen of this sort of calculation is in “[K.Z.] Morgan to [Leonard] Hamilton,” August 26, 1965, Taylor, note 2, 8-319–21.

  43. 43.

    Sowby FD. Survey of Comments on Third Draft of 1965 Recommendations. ICRP/65/MC-11, note 2, 9-463–4.

  44. 44.

    K. Z. Morgan comments on ICRP/64/MC-14, note 3, 9-441–3.

  45. 45.

    Congressional Hearings on the Health and Safety Act of 1968, Taylor, note 2, 10-388. Morgan was later voted off the main ICRP commission but made an emeritus member, “ICRP in Brighton,” Lindell, note 9, 133–43.

  46. 46.

    Fitzgerald M. The High Resolution Life: Ernest Sternglass, Nuclear Reductionist. PittMed. 2015; https://www.pittmed.health.pitt.edu/story/high-resolution-life, accessed November 6, 2022. A second University of Pittsburgh professor, epidemiologist Edward P. Radford, later joined those who thought risk estimates for radiation exposure should be raised and chaired a controversial NAS BEIR III report, see “NAS Study Takes the Middle Road,” Science, Vol. 204, May 18, 1979, 711–4.

  47. 47.

    Boffey PM. Ernest J. Sternglass: Controversial Prophet of Doom. Science. 1969 Oct 10;166(3902):195–200. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.166.3902.195, accessed September 12, 2023.

  48. 48.

    Hacker BC. Elements of Controversy: the Atomic Energy Commission and Radiation Safety in Nuclear Weapons testing, 1947–1974. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1994:253. See also Lindell, note 9, “Sternglass,” 57–8 and “The Nordic Society for Radiation Protection in Copenhagen,” 103–106 for Sternglass’ reception in Britain and Scandinavia, where openness turned quickly to rejection.

  49. 49.

    David Sowby to Bo Lindell, November 26, 1971, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 66–75, Archive File 66, Misc Docs 1.pdf, 84–6 at 85.

  50. 50.

    “Report Review Procedures,” Taylor, note 2, 10-102. In light of later developments, Taylor regarded Tamplin’s refusal to join the committee a “lucky break” for the NCRP.

  51. 51.

    Tamplin AR, Gofman JW. The Radiation Effects Controversy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 1970 Sep 1;26(7):2–8. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.1970.11457836, accessed November 8, 2022.

  52. 52.

    John W. Gofman and Arthur R. Tamplin to Dr. Paul Tompkins, Executive Director, Federal Radiation Council, “The Federal Radiation Council Review of Radiation Standards for Population Exposure,” December 26, 1969, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 66–75, Archive Files 66, Misc Docs 1.pdf, 57–61.

  53. 53.

    John W. Gofman and Arthur R. Tamplin, “Federal Radiation Council Guidelines for Radiation Exposure of the Population-at-Large—Protection or Disaster?” Testimony presented before the Sub-Committee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on Public Works, United States Senate, 91st Congress, November 18, 1969, ICRP Archives, Box 054, Circular letters 1970.pdf, 11–32.

  54. 54.

    “Political Activity,” which includes Muskie’s December 1, 1969 letter and Taylor’s January 23, 1970 reply, note 2, 10-106–10. Taylor was even more annoyed when Senator Muskie wrote directly to the ICRP, note 2, 10-356–60: “As you can see I am not very happy.”

  55. 55.

    Ibid., at 10-109. The new report was never officially published by the NCRP but sought to justify, once again, the existing norms, see “Radiation Dose to the General Population: Ad Hoc Committee Report,” March 1971, Taylor, note 2, 10-156–62.

  56. 56.

    “Reprinted from the ACR Bulletin of June 1970,” Taylor, note 2, 10-366–7.

  57. 57.

    John W. Gofman and Arthur R. Tamplin to The Members of the ICRP, “An Earnest Request for Our Mutual Cooperation in Furtherance of the Understanding of Radiation Carcinogenesis,” March 2, 1970, ICRP Archives, Archive Files, Archive Files 66–75, Archive File 66, Misc Docs 1.pdf, 54–56.

  58. 58.

    A Congressional Seminar: (A) the History of Erroneous Handling of the Radiation Hazard Problem in Atomic Energy Development (Presented by John W. Gofman); (B) A proposal for a Rational Future Protection Policy with Respect to Radioactivity and Other Forms of Pollution (presented by Arthur R. Tamplin,” April 7–8, 1970, GT-119-70, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 12–22, Archive File 12, 401–26, at 425.

  59. 59.

    Sowby D. ICRP Secretary, “Gofman/Tamplin Reports,” March 31, 1970, Taylor, note 2, 10-359.

  60. 60.

    “Rulison Detonation,” quoted from the Health Physics Society Newsletter of December 1970, Taylor, note 2, 10-036–40.

  61. 61.

    Taylor also faced off against Gofman and K.Z. Morgan in various court cases in the 1980s, “Lauriston Taylor v Karl Morgan,” Lindell, note 9, 309.

  62. 62.

    Brinkley D. Silent Spring Revolution: John F. Kennedy, Rachel Carson, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and the Great Environmental Awakening. HarperCollins; 2022.

  63. 63.

    Walker JS. Permissible Dose, A History of Radiation Protection in the Twentieth Century, J. Samuel Walker, 2000. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2000:47.

  64. 64.

    “Taylor to McCool,” August 6, 1971, Taylor, note 2, 10-173. Taylor was reacting to the proposed rulemaking, published in the Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 111, June 9, 1971. Taylor later testified in favor of the AEC’s tightening of the power plant standards, while expressing concern about the implications of requiring all radiation sources to meet a “lowest practicable” standard, see Taylor, note 2, Annex T, “Testimony at AEC Hearings on ALAP [as low as practicable], 1972.

  65. 65.

    The text of this Report 39 is no longer readily available, but it was the subject of a press conference at the Mayflower Hotel, January 26, 1971, see Taylor, note 2, 10-152–4.

  66. 66.

    “Radiation Dose to the General Population,” Ad Hoc Committee Report, March 1971, Taylor, note 2, 10-156–62.

  67. 67.

    Sixth Annual Meeting of Members, March 19, 1970, Taylor, note 2, 10-110–12.

  68. 68.

    Seventh Annual Meeting of Members and 21st Meeting of the Board of Directors, March 18, 1971, Taylor, note 2, 10-162–7. The idea died in the hands of Russell Morgan, who constituted a “one-man committee” to prepare to give the matter further consideration, Taylor, note 2, 10-172.

  69. 69.

    The report’s main recommendations and conclusions are reflected in a 1972 proposal for foundation funding, Taylor, note 2, 10-211–4.

  70. 70.

    National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council. The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing, report of the Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation [Internet]. 1972 Nov. https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/37/004/37004410.pdf, accessed February 4, 2023.

  71. 71.

    Proposal that the NCRP Initiate a New Activity Concerned with Reassessment of the Maximum Permissible Dose Equivalent Levels. Taylor, note 2, 10-218–9.

  72. 72.

    Radiation Quantities—Population Dose (II), Taylor, note 2, 10-308–9.

  73. 73.

    Lindell, note 9, Gofman and Tamplin. pp. 71–75, at 73.

  74. 74.

    Ibid.

  75. 75.

    Lindell to Sowby, May 4, 1971, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 35–45, Archive File 43, SOWBY July 1972.pdf, 127. This and other more technical points about risk estimates and dose limits are discussed in Lindell to Sowby, March 10, 1970, ICRP Archives, Archive File 43, SOWBY July 1972.pdf, 202–5.

  76. 76.

    Lindell To Sowby, November 25, 1971, Taylor note 2, 10-389–93. This extraordinary letter deals not only with Sternglass, Gofman, and Tamplin but also with other controversial issues like radiation exposure in supersonic aircraft and for pregnant women. Lindell, who was ICRP Vice Chair, had other complaints about the ICRP’s mode of operation, see Minutes of the Commission Meeting in Ottawa: March 1972, ICRP Archives, Box W-10, in “Minutes 1953–72.pdf,” 4–16, at pp. 11–12.

  77. 77.

    Ibid.

  78. 78.

    Ibid.

  79. 79.

    Lindell B. Tribute to Dan Beninson. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2004;24:91–2. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952-4746/24/1/L01/pdf, accessed August 20, 2023.

  80. 80.

    Lindell to Charles B. Meinhold, June 11, 1969, ICRP Archives, Archive File 35, Comm 3 Task Group Grande 1965–70.pdf, 8–10.

  81. 81.

    Taper B. Prodigy [Internet]. The New Yorker. 1957. Available from: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1957/09/07/prodigy-3, accessed August 20, 2023.

  82. 82.

    “Uses and Limitations of Further Refinements of Data for Purposes of Protection,” ICRP/69/0:C1-13, April 17, 1969, note 3, 10-339–40.

  83. 83.

    The never published Beninson report “ICRP Task Group on Dose Limits Report to Main Commission” is in ICRP Archives, Archive Files 1–11, Archive File 11, 65–6 B.pdf, 119–91. Taylor provides a brief summary “Report of the Task Group on Dose Limits,” note 2, 10-427, and in Appendix V he gives the bulk of the report. The date appears to be 1973. A draft of the full report, presumably the one discussed in 1972 at the ICRP meeting at Great Fosters appears in ICRP Archives, Box G044, Discussed at meeting at Great Fosters Engl. 1972.pdf, 1–72. David Sowby regarded the results as fortuitous: “Our present approach is to discuss levels of risk considered to be acceptable for non-irradiation conditions, and then to use these levels to arrive at a dose limit. In the case of whole body exposure it turns out that the dose limit based on this method exactly equals the one we have had for the past two decades,” Sowby to Lindell, October 21, 1974, ICRP Archive Files 34, Sowby 1974–76, at 216. The idea of comparing radiation risks with those in other occupations was not new, see E. E. Pochin, “Biological Bases for Standards and Maximum Radiation Levels Under Normal Conditions,” Scheveningen, December 1961, ICRP Archives, Box 039, C1 TG Spatial Distribution 1965–1969.pdf, 61–70. Pochin was an ICRP Main Commission member and became its Chair in 1962.

  84. 84.

    Note 14, 205.

  85. 85.

    ICRP. The Evaluation of Risks from Radiation: A report prepared for Committee I of the International Commission on Radiological Protection and received by the Committee on April 20th, 1965. Pergamon Press. 1966; Publication 8. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1016/S0074-27406580002-2, accessed July 30, 2023 and Radiosensitivity and Spatial Distribution of Dose: Reports prepared by two Task Groups of Committee 1 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Pergamon Press. 1969; Publication 14. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1016/S0074-27406980001-2, accessed July 30, 2023.

  86. 86.

    Ibid., V-13.

  87. 87.

    ICRP Task Group on Dose Limits Report to Main Commission. Taylor, note 2, Appendix V.

  88. 88.

    Ibid.

  89. 89.

    “Report on Meeting of ICRP Committee 1,” Harwell, England, November 18–21, 1975, in ICRP Archives, Box G054, Circular letters 1976 and Whiteshell 1976.pdf, 120–7.

  90. 90.

    K. Z. Morgan to David Sowby, February 19, 1975, ICRP Archives, Box #29, Archive Files 35–45, Archive files 34, Sowby 1974–76.pdf, 175–8.

  91. 91.

    F. D. Sowby to Members of the Main Commission, April 14, 1976, “Quality Factor for Neutrons,” ICRP/76/MC-151976-04-14, ICRP Archives, Circular letters 1976 and Whiteshell 1976.pdf, 34, forwarding a paper prepared by Harald Rossi that had been sent to the Chair by A. C. Upton, which is at 35–40.

  92. 92.

    “Report on Dose Limits,” ICRP/76/MC-13, Box G054, Circular letters 1976 and Whiteshell 1976.pdf, 19–29.

  93. 93.

    See, for example, G. W. Dolphin, “ICRP 29,” ICRP Archives, Archive Files 35–45, Archive File 41, Cirk 1977–1978.pdf, 252, Charles B. Meinhold, ibid., 265–7, Liniecki, Comments, ICRP/77/MC-4, ibid., 268–70, H. J. Dunster to Sowby, January 5, 1977, ibid., 272–3. The Soviet support is in a paper by L. A. Ilyin, who in the 1990s became a member of the Main Commission, see “Comments of the NCRP of the USSR to Draft 4, Recommendation of the International Commission on Radiological Protection,” ICRP/75/B.MC-2, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 35–45, Archive File 44, Circular MC- G- 1975.pdf, 245–53.

  94. 94.

    “Minutes of Special Main Commission Meeting, Woodstock, 1977,” ICRP/77/MC-13, ICRP Archives, Archive File 41, Cirk 1977–1978.pdf, 205–6. Beninson himself moved the adoption of the unchanged recommendations.

  95. 95.

    Lindell, note 9, “ICRP in Woodstock,” p. 194.

  96. 96.

    “Report on Dose Limits,” ICRP/77/B:MC-5, May 5, 1977, ICRP Archives, Box G054, Circular letters 1996.pdf, 109–121. Resistance to lowering the occupational dose limit came from several Commission members, see.

  97. 97.

    These are discussed in detail and defended in Lindell DB, Sowby FD. International radiation protection recommendations. Five years experience of ICRP Publication 26 (IAEA-CN-42/15). Nuclear Power Experience, Proceedings of an International Conference, Vienna, 13–17. 1982 Sep;Volume 4: Nuclear Safety:3–22. https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/14/779/14779115.pdf?r=1, accessed August 24, 2023.

  98. 98.

    Lindell to Rotblat, January 17, 1978, ICRP Archives, Archive Files Box 81, Archive Files 81 part 2.pdf, 92–3.

  99. 99.

    See, for example, Dickson D. Radiation: ICRP Rules Row. Nature. 1980 Jun 1;285(5764):350. https://doi.org/10.1038/285350a0, accessed August 9, 2023. The ICRP received voluminous responses to its request for comments on practical applications of the 1977 recommendations, ICRP Archives, Box 815, Task Group reviewing Pub. 26.pdf, 31–354. Lindell received a scathing critique from Edward Radford, a colleague of Sternglass at the University of Pittsburgh, November 14, 1979, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 81, Archive Files 81 part 1.pdf, 68–71.

  100. 100.

    Recommendations of the ICRP. Annals of the ICRP. ICRP Publication 26(Oxford: Pergamon Press):3. reprinted 1987.

  101. 101.

    Clarke RH, Valentin J. The History of ICRP and the Evolution of its Policies, invited by the Commission in October 2008 and published in Annals of the ICRP 2009.

  102. 102.

    The tightening of the basic dose limits discussed here was only one of many changes from 1977 to 1990. These are reviewed in Clarke RH. Changes in Underlying Science and Protection Policy. Nuclear Energy Agency (OCSCE), Evolution of ICRP Recommendations 1977, 1990 and 2007. NEA No. 6920, 2011. https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/6920-icrp-recommendations.pdf, accessed August 25, 2023.

  103. 103.

    Working Group “Report to the Thirtieth session of UNSCEAR UNSCEAR/XXX /9”, Vienna, 6 to 10 July 1981 (7 July 1981), Chairman: Prof. Z. Jaworowski (Poland) and Rapporteur: Dr. K.H. Lokan (Australia), ICRP Archives, Box 26, Archive files 90, “C-1.pdf,” 10–11. See also “New A-Bomb Studies Alter Radiation Estimates,” Science, Vol. 212, May 21, 1981, 900–903 and Science, Vol. 214, October 2, 1981, 31–2. The impetus for the recalculation of doses came from researchers at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, the same lab where Gofman and Tamplin had worked.

  104. 104.

    Preston AV, Prentice RL, ass. Koda M. Possible Between-City Inconsistency of Dose-Mortality Relationship in A-Bomb Survivors Using T65DR and LLNL Dose Estimates. Radiation Effects Research Foundation, approved 31 March 1983, printed September 1985. https://www.rerf.or.jp/library/scidata/tr_all/TR1983-06.pdf, accessed February 27, 2023.

  105. 105.

    Lindell, note 9, 358–61.

  106. 106.

    ICRP Publication 26, note 100. Statement from the 1983 Meeting of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, at 67.

  107. 107.

    Ibid., Statement from the 1984 Stockholm Meeting of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, at p. 75.

  108. 108.

    Report of Committee 1 to the Main Commission, Stockholm, May 14–18, 1984, ICRP/S: C1-01, 1984-5-16, para 1.1 and the appended report ICRP/84/S:C1-04, ICRP Archives, Box W-10, Minutes 1962-96.pdf, 165–82.

  109. 109.

    “The Dose Limits,” ICRP Archives, Archive Files 46-53, Archive File 53, part 1.pdf, 143–50.

  110. 110.

    ICRP Publication 26, note 100 above. Statement from the 1985 Paris meeting of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, at p. 79.

  111. 111.

    H. J. Dunster, “The Basic Objectives and Policy of the Commission: A Discussion Note,” ICRP/85/MC-35, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 48–54, Archive File 48 (54), PartB.pdf, 215–7.

  112. 112.

    Nineteen amendments in Commission statements and forty-seven in Committee reports are listed in “Policy Statements Issued Since ICRP Publication 26,” ICRP/86/MC-04, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 48–54, Archive file 48, PartA.pdf, 23–30.

  113. 113.

    ICRP, “Principles for Planning Protection of the Public in the Event of Major Radiation Accidents,” ICRP/84/C4-5/1, ICRP Archives, Box 26, Archive Files 89, “Committee 4 Task Group 1984.pdf,” 64–109. This appeared later in the year as ICRP, 1984, Protection of the Public in the Event of Major Radiation Accidents - Principles for Planning. ICRP Publication 40. Ann. ICRP 14 (2).

  114. 114.

    Note 2, “IRPA in Sydney,” 370–72, at 372. The Secretary of the ICRP, David Sowby, and Bo Lindell, its Chair, had already argued against the “de minimis” advocates in 1984, Memorandum to Members of the Main Commission, “The question of trivial or de minimis levels,” January 20, 1984, ICRP/84/MC-01, ICRP Archives, Box 26, Archive Files 89, “Committee 4 Task Group 1984.pdf,” 2–7. The issue of “de minimis” levels was also the focus of an exchange of letters between Bo Lindell and Walter Marshall in 1982, ICRP Archives, Box W-10, Commission Correspondence 1996.pdf, 26–34. Beninson was best friends with Lindell and would have known about these exchanges.

  115. 115.

    These were reviewed by Ralph E. Lapp, “Cancer Risk and Litigation,” AIF Conference on Insurance and Legal Issues in the 1980s,” New Orleans, January 23, 1985, ICRP Archives, Archive file Box W-10, Commission Corespondence 1996.pdf, 86–105.

  116. 116.

    Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238 (1984) [Internet]. Justia Law US Supreme Court. Available from: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/238/ accessed September 24, 2023.

  117. 117.

    Verplanken B. Public Reactions to the Chernobyl Accident: a Case of Rationality? Organ. Environ. 1991 Dec;5(253):253–69. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/108602669100500402, accessed March 4, 2023.

  118. 118.

    US-Japan Atomic Bomb Radiation Dosimetry Committees (US Committee Chairman: Frederick Seitz Japanese Committee Chairman: Eizo Tajima), “Joint Statement on the Reassessment of the Atomic Bomb Radiation Dosimetry and the Establishment of a New Dosimetry System,” 17 March 1986, Hiroshima, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 48–54, Archive File 49 (54), PartA.pdf, 385–6.

  119. 119.

    Preston DL, Pierce DA. The Effect of Changes in Dosimetry on Cancer Mortality Risk Estimates in the Atomic Bomb Survivors. Radiation Effect Research Foundation. 1987. This paper was later published in Radiat Res. 1988 Jun;114(3):437–66. An abstract is available at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3375435/, accessed March 4, 2023.

  120. 120.

    “Revision of the Commission's Basic Recommendation,” ICRP/87/MC-05, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 46–53, Archive File 53 part 1.pdf, 543–70.

  121. 121.

    ICRP Archives, W-18 Archive Box 32, ICRP Como 1987, “Minutes of the ICRP Meeting Washington USA 1987,” March 18, 1987, 190–95. Beninson reiterated the 1 mSv figure in a note to the Main Commission dated August 18, 1987: “The value of the limit for members of the public should be based on risk considerations and be equivalent to the dose received from the ‘usual’ natural background (about 1 mSv),” Beninson to Dear Colleague, ICRP 87/C: MC-02 in ICRP Archives, MCTG 1987.pdf, 178–83 at 181.

  122. 122.

    Ibid., ICRP/87/MC-1/71987-06-10, “Minutes of a meeting of a Main Commission Task Group (previously a drafting group) held at N.R.P.B.,” Chilton, Oxon, United Kingdom from 27–29 May 1987.

  123. 123.

    “ICRP meeting with the Committees in Como,” Lindell, note 9, 358–61, at 359. The minutes of the Committee 1 meeting in Como summarize the discussion of the Preston-Pierce report, see ICRP Archives, Box W-10, “Minutes 1962–96.pdf,” 96–113. It is also referred to in “Statement of the 1987 Como meeting of the International Commission on Radiological Protection,” Archive Files 96, MC 1987.pdf, 32–42.

  124. 124.

    The Friends of the Earth efforts and critique are presented in a letter to the editor from Patrick Green, “The response of the International Commission on Radiological Protection to calls for a reduction in the dose limits for radiation workers and members of the public,” International Journal of Radiation Biology. 1988;53(4):679–82, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09553008814551001, accessed August 1, 2023.

  125. 125.

    Lindell, note 9, “ICRP meeting with the Committees in Como,” 358–61, at 359.

  126. 126.

    ICRP Archives, Box W-10, Minutes of ICRP Committee 1 Meeting Como, Italy: 7–11 September 1987, “Minutes 1962–96.pdf,” 96–113.

  127. 127.

    Ibid.

  128. 128.

    ICRP. Statement from the 1987 Como Meeting of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 1987 Jul 1;19(3):189–92. https://doi-org.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a079941, Environmental groups were not happy. UK Friends of the Earth registered its objection to the ICRP’s decision not to lower dose limits at Como, Green P. The Response of the International Commission on Radiological Protection to Calls for a Reduction in the Dose Limits for Radiation Workers and Members of the Public. International Journal of Radiation Biology. 1988;53(4):679–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553008814551001. So too did H. Stockinger for the Austrian Naturschutzbund Salzburg Regional Section in a letter to Beninson, ICRP Archives, A805, Comments on draft 90-G01.pdf, 57. See also Read “Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR V” at NAP.edu [Internet]. nap.nationalacademies.org. Available from: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/1224/chapter/1, accessed March 6, 2023. No doubt Beninson knew its conclusions well before 1990, as Arthur C. Upton, then chair of an ICRP committee, also chaired BEIR V.

  129. 129.

    UNSCEAR. Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation 1988 Report to the General Assembly, with annexes United Nations [Internet]. Available from: https://www.unscear.org/unscear/uploads/documents/unscear-reports/UNSCEAR_1988_Report.pdf, accessed March 6, 2023.

  130. 130.

    John Dunster to Dr. D.J. Beninson, Dr. H. Jammet, Prof. J. Liniecki, Mr. C.B. Meinhold, and Dr. W.K. Sinclair, July 14, 1987, ICRP Archives, Box A801 Registry, MCTG 1987.pdf, 184.

  131. 131.

    The Amersham note is from A. McNair, Safety Controller, ibid., 185–9.

  132. 132.

    ICRP, “H John Dunster CB ARCS BSc FSRP 1922–2006,” May 12, 2006, https://www.icrp.org/page.asp?id=101, accessed August 8, 2023. Dunster’s note asking for employer input prior to the 1987 Como meeting as well as a summary of the replies is at ICRP Archives, Archive Files 96, MC 1987.pdf, 77–90. He also received input from the Trades Union Congress.

  133. 133.

    1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication, 60. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_21_1-3, accessed March 4, 2023.

  134. 134.

    Clarke RH. Interim Guidance on the Implications of Recent Revisions of Risk Estimates and the ICRP 1987 Como Statement. www.ostigov [Internet]. 1987 Nov 1; Available from: https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/5544248#fullrecord, accessed August 1, 2023. This is an abstract of the document, which I have not found.

  135. 135.

    “Position of the French Competent Authorities on the New ICRP Recommendations (February 1990 draft),” ICRP/90/MC-W/07, June 18, 1990, ICRP Archives, Box G043, “Minutes of C 1 -Bethesda Maryland 1990.pdf,” 51–4. The French predicted “disastrous effects both on the public and the workers involved” due to fear and disavowal of the previous limit. For the German position, see Heinrich Joachim Hardt of the Bundesminister für Umwelt Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit Geschäftszeichen to O. Ilari of the NEA/OECD, March 8, 1990, ibid., 94–5.

  136. 136.

    William A. Mills to Warren Sinclair, May 29, 1990, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 1–11, Archive File 9, MC-1-18-1988.pdf, 119–24.

  137. 137.

    ICRP, “Statements and Annual Reports part 2.pdf,” Press Release, November 12, 1990, Statements and Annual Reports Part 2.pdf, ICRP Archives, Misc Box 4, at 97.

  138. 138.

    ICRP, “DRAFT - IN STRICT CONFIDENCE, RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION 1990,”ICRP/88/MC-1/32, 1988-11-08, ICRP Archives, Archive files 94-102, “97 MC1988-90 A.pdf” 167–8. I have not found this frank statement in the final version.

  139. 139.

    “Committee II Report on Internal Dose,” Taylor, note 2, 9-264.

  140. 140.

    Binks to Professor Sievert, ICRP/55/8(c), November 7, 1955, Taylor, 8-275.

  141. 141.

    Sievert to Pochin, Stockholm, May 4, 1960, Taylor, 9-301.

  142. 142.

    “The Arab Conference on Ionising Radiations and Protection Against Their Hazards,” ICRP/62/3, Appendix 1, page 2, Taylor, 9-336–7.

  143. 143.

    “Meeting of ICRP and ICRU Officers,” May 8–9, 1963, ICRP/63/MC21, Taylor, 9-939–6.

  144. 144.

    These problems are specified in Scientific Research into Protection of the Public against Radiation: Real Achievements and Lost Opportunities. In: Chapter 2 in Chernobyl: Myth and Reality, translated from the Russian. Moscow: Megalopolis; 1995:28–35.

  145. 145.

    The Soviet taboo on the LNT hypothesis and on the risk/benefit analysis required to define “acceptable risk” is discussed in ibid., 269–75.

  146. 146.

    See, for example, Morgan to Krotkov, November 1955, note 3, 8-260–61.

  147. 147.

    Sievert to the Members of the Main Commission, November 27, 1963, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 46–54, Archive file 47, Archives 47 part 1.pdf, 261.

  148. 148.

    See “ICRP Committee 3 in Dubna and Moscow” for Lindell’s account, with the usual drinking tales, Lindell, note 9, 114–16.

  149. 149.

    Lindell to Sowby, April 20, 1972, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 43, SOWBY July 1972.pdf, 49.

  150. 150.

    Yu. I. Moskalev to W. J. Barr, “About the Biological Action of Transuranium Elements which Enter the Animal Body through the Respiratory Tract.” Archive Files 1–11, Archive File 11, 65–66 B.pdf, 1–65.

  151. 151.

    Touzet R. Dan J. Beninson (1931–2003): Obituary. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2003;23:453–5. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952-4746/23/4/M01/pdf, accessed July 13, 2023.

  152. 152.

    “Membership of ICRP Task Groups; November 1966,” Taylor, note 2, 9-490–92.

  153. 153.

    “ICRP in Brighton,” Lindell, note 9, 133–43. Lindell thought that incident led to Morgan’s subsequent “critical attitude” toward the ICRP, Lindell to Morgan, January 8, 1981, ICRP Archives, Archive files 81, D-Forda Handlingar 81.pdf, 65. Some of the 1973 brouhaha is apparent in letters from Lindell to Sowby and from K. Z. Morgan to Sowby, ICRP Archives, Archive File 42, SOWBY 1970–73.pdf, 54–57.

  154. 154.

    “ICRP in Whiteshell,” Lindell, note 9, 184–5.

  155. 155.

    Sowby to Chang and Lindell to Chang, ICRP Archives, Archive File 42, SOWBY 1970–73.pdf, 152–4.

  156. 156.

    “UNEP’s scandal meeting in Geneva,” Lindell, note 9, 224–7, at 225.

  157. 157.

    Lindell to Wei, August 18, 1979, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 81, Archive Files 81 part 1.pdf, 90. Wei’s High Background Radiation Research Group, China soon thereafter published, Health Survey in High Background Radiation Areas in China. Science. 1980 Aug 22;209:877–80.

  158. 158.

    “ICRP in China and Japan,” Lindell, note 9, 262–5, at 265. P. Ziqiang refers to the literature survey in his 1996 G. William Morgan lecture, Radiation risk—a Chinese perspective. Health Phys. 1997 Aug;73:295 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9228164/, accessed May 30, 2023.

  159. 159.

    Lindell, note 9, “The ICRP MC in Paris in March—Member Emeritus,” pp. 310–11.

  160. 160.

    Pan Ziqiang to Lindell, November 30, 1997, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 1–11, Archive File 4, 07-25-1994.pdf, 13.

  161. 161.

    Lindell, note 9, “ICRP in Eastbourne,” 272–4.

  162. 162.

    “Symposium in Madrid regarding ICRP’s recommendations,” Lindell, note 9, 268.

  163. 163.

    Granovetter MS. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology [Internet]. 1973;78(6):1360–80. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2776392, accessed April 10, 2023.

  164. 164.

    ICRP Archives, Box #@-9 Box #G060, “ICRP New Rec Corres.pdf,” 95–6. Comparable requests, from both nuclear industry people and radiation protection people, came from South Korea, Japan, India, Australia, Brazil, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Algeria.

  165. 165.

    The protest was a collective one to David Sowby, ICRP Scientific Secretary, from the Deutsche Roentgengesellschaft, the Gesellschaft für medizinische Radiologie, die Strahlenbiologie und Nuklearmedizin Fachnormenausschuss Radiologie im Deutschen Normenausschuss, in Arbeitsgemeinschaft mit der Deutschen Roentgengesellschaft Fachverband 18 im Zentralverband der elektrotechnischen Industrie, “Draft ICRP/69/C3-1 Protection against external radiation,” note 3, 10-347. The original letter and annex are in ICRP Archives, Box 26, Archive files 34, “C3 fr Nov 65 to Oct 69.pdf,” 133–35.

  166. 166.

    Lindell to Fachnormenausschuss Radiologie, August 7, 1969, Taylor, note 2, 10-349.

  167. 167.

    Letters from the U.S., U.K., Canada, Japan are in ICRP Archives, Box 26, Archive files 34, “C3 fr Nov 65 to Oct 69.pdf,” 115–25 and 128–30. Taylor’s confession is in Taylor to David Sowby, ibid., August 19, 1969, 126–7. Mostly supportive letters to Lindell are also in ICRP Archives, Box 824, C 3 Task Group Rev to Publications 3 & 4 1966–70.pdf, 6–43.

  168. 168.

    Russell Morgan to Bo Lindell, ICRP Archives, G041, C 3 Task Group on High Radiation 1965–69.pdf, August 7, 1968, 152–4.

  169. 169.

    Bo Lindell to Russel H. Morgan, October 30, 1968, ICRP Archives, Box G041, C 3 Task Group on High Radiation 1965–69.pdf, 149–51.

  170. 170.

    Karl Z. Morgan, “The Proper Working Level of Radon and Its Daughter Products in the Uranium Mines of the United States,” to be presented at the Hearing on Radiation Standards for Mines, Washington, D.C., November 20, 1968, ICRP Archives, Royal Comm -Health & Safety of Workers in Mines Part 2.pdf, 51–55.

  171. 171.

    Proposal that the NCRP Initiate a New Activity Concerned with Reassessment of the Maximum Permissible Dose Equivalent Levels,” NCRP/BD/72/66, December 6, 1972, Taylor 10-218–9.

  172. 172.

    ICRP Archives, specific reference lost.

  173. 173.

    J. H. Dunster, “ICRP - 1969,” note 3, 10-334–5.

  174. 174.

    Jerzy Zajngner to Sievert, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 56, Stockholm Meeting 1978.pdf, 80.

  175. 175.

    Lindell, note 9, “ICRP in Eastbourne,” 270–74 at 273.

  176. 176.

    “Recommendations of the ICRP,” ICRP Publication 26 (Pergamon, 1977). This point was reiterated in the new “Constitution of the International Commission on Radiological Protection,” ICRP Archives, Misc Box 4, “ICRU,” 77–82.

  177. 177.

    Hercules, 275.

  178. 178.

    Bo Lindell to Russell Morgan, 30 October 1968, Box G041, C 3 Task Group on High Radiation 1965–69.pdf, 149–51.

  179. 179.

    L. D. G. Richings, “Risks Dose Equivalent Limits and ICRP,” ICRP Archives, Archive Files 100, MC.pdf, 95–106, at 96–97.

  180. 180.

    “A Proposed Rule by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on 07/25/2014,” Federal Register, 10 CFR Part 20 [NRC–2009–0279], RIN 3150–AJ29, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2014-07-25/pdf/2014-17252.pdf, accessed August 25, 2023.

  181. 181.

    Ibid.

  182. 182.

    Weiss EB. Conclusions: Understanding Compliance with Soft Law, Chapter 9. In: Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-Binding Norms in the International Legal System. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.

  183. 183.

    “ICRP Budget 1982–1984,” attached to “Proposed Agenda for Washington Meeting,” ICRP/83/MC-08, July 29, 1983, ICRP Archives, Archive File 94, MC 1960–1983B.pdf, 102–7.

  184. 184.

    ICRP Funding [Internet]. www.icrp.org. Available from: https://www.icrp.org/page.asp?id=172#:~:text=As%20an%20independent%20registered%20charity, accessed October 16, 2023.

  185. 185.

    ICRP Annual Report 2022 [Internet]. Available from: https://www.icrp.org/admin/AnnualReport2022_Digital-FINAL.pdf, accessed October 16, 2023.

  186. 186.

    Bo Lindell to Lauriston Taylor, December 18, 1959, ICRP Archives, Box W-18, Archive file 26, 3–5.

  187. 187.

    Minutes of the ICRP Meeting, Washington USA 1987,” ICRP/87/MC16, dated March 18, 1987, ICRP Archives, Box W-18, Archive files 32, ICRP Como 1987.pdf, 41–56, at p. 14.

  188. 188.

    [Eugene] Saenger, “Social Responsiveness of NCRP Activities,” July 3, 1973, Taylor, note 2, 10-240–42.

  189. 189.

    “Topics That Might Be Included in a Study of Social Responsiveness of NCRP Activities,” ibid., 10-217.

  190. 190.

    Saenger E. Social Responsiveness of NCRP Activities. July 3, 1973, ibid., 10-240–42.

  191. 191.

    31st Meeting of the Board of Directors, “Radiation Protection Philosophy,” ibid., 10-249–50.

  192. 192.

    Sowby to Members of the Commission, “Observers at the 1980 ICRP Meeting,” March 6, 1980, ICRP/80/MC-04, ICRP Archives, Archive Files 55–65, Archive File 65, Cirk 1979–1980.pdf, 59.

  193. 193.

    For samples, see Alvarez R. [U.S.] Environmental Policy Institute, Radiation Exposure Limits. Bull At Sci. 1980 Nov;58–9. and “La Confédération Générale du Travail Force Ouvrière et les Recommandations de la C.I.P.R. 26,” ICRP Archives, Box W-26, Archive Files 91, “Sowby.pdf,” 73–83.

  194. 194.

    Taylor LS. Some Non-Scientific Influences on Radiation Protection Standards and Practice: the 1980 Sievert Lecture. Health Physics [Internet]. 1980 Dec 1;39(6):851. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Citation/1980/12000/SOME_NONSCIENTIFIC_INFLUENCES_ON_RADIATION.1.aspx, accessed May 30, 2023.

  195. 195.

    Hylton Smith to Main Commission members, “Record and Minutes of the ICRP Meetings in Como 1987,” ICRP/87/MC-28, 1987-10-09, ICRP Archives, Box #5, Constitution, Rules, Procedures A.pdf.

  196. 196.

    Dozens of these totaling close to 600 pages can be viewed in the ICRP Archives, “Comments on draft 90-G01.pdf,” file A805. These include comments from government institutions, intergovernmental organizations, environmental organizations, and individual scientists. The first batch are summarized in “Responses received and summarised by the Scientific Secretary (1/6/90) (for Mr Dunster)”, ibid., at 237–47. Additional comments are in ICRP Archives, Box 1163, Misc dossie.pdf.

  197. 197.

    ICRP Archives, “Letters from Friends of the Earth.pdf,” file 805.

  198. 198.

    “Comments on ICRP/90/G-1 submitted through Bo Lindell,” 1990-06-16 ICRP/90/MC-, ICRP Archives, Box W-26, Archive Files 92, “92-10-08.pdf,” 13–23. Tamplin was among those submitting comments in 1990, see Tamplin and Bjorn O. Gillberg, Miljocentrum's “Comments on Draft ICRP 190/G-01 Recommendations of the Commission –1990,” May 11, 1990, ICRP Archives, Box W-26, 92-10-08.pdf, 34–9. The draft recommendations were sent in early 1990 to the International Society of Radiology, the Soviet-led Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON), the International Radiation Protection Association, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the Commission of the European Communities, the International Labor Office, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the (U.S.) Health Physics Society as well as national radiation protection authorities and the Main Commission and committee members both for their own comments and for circulation to professional colleagues. This wider distribution than in the past generated dozens of responses, ICRP Archives, Box G041, Nuclear Safety circa 1990.pdf, 36-211 and 219-311 and G042, 03-26-1990.pdf. Some Canadian comments are to be found scattered in Box 042, Recommendations Draft 1990 A.pdf.

  199. 199.

    “Generational change for radiation protection” Lindell, note 9, 409–11.

  200. 200.

    “The conclusion of a century,” Lindell, note 9, 454–5.

  201. 201.

    Clarke R. Control of low-level Radiation Exposure: Time for a Change? Journal of Radiological Protection. 1999;19:107–25. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952-4746/19/2/301/pdf, accessed July 14, 2023. For a taste of the opposition his proposals aroused, see Lecomte JF, Schieber C. Contribution of the French Society for Radiation Protection to the Current Reflections on the Possible Improvements of the Radiological Risk Management System. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2001;21(277). https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/21/3/306, accessed July 14, 2023.

  202. 202.

    By 2003, the ICRP had decided against a “radical revision,” see ICRP. The Evolution of the System of Radiological protection: the Justification for New ICRP Recommendations. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2003;23:129–42. https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/23/2/301, accessed July 14, 2023. Nine national member societies of the International Radiation Protection Association had critiqued Clarke’s proposals, see IRPA Member Societies’ Contributions to the Development of new ICRP Recommendations, July 2000, ICRP Archives, Box #5, Controllable Doses, IRPA Members Societies Contributions-2000.pdf, 6–145.

  203. 203.

    Lindell, note 9 above, at 409–11, at 411.

  204. 204.

    “The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection,” Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 37 Nos. 2–4, ICRP Publication 103, 2007, p. 4. For samples from this process, see “Development of the Draft 2005 Recommendations of the ICRP: a Collection of Papers,” ICRP Supporting Guidance 4 Commissioned/approved by ICRP, April 1998–April 2004, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/ANIB_34_1/suppl_file/ANI_34_1.pdf, accessed July 13, 2023.

  205. 205.

    J. W. Stather, L.-E. Holm, J. Valentina “Meeting of ICRP Main Commission and Committees: 11–18 September 2005, Geneva, Switzerland,” Archives, 2004–2006 Box 13, File A64, Dossie 00 MC.pdf, 5–8. The results of the consultation are summarized in “Summary of the Results of the Consultation on the Proposed 2005 Recommendations,” Note by Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Scientific Secretary, 00/47/0, ibid., 124–44.

  206. 206.

    ICRP Chair Lars-Erik Holm to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chair Dale E. Klein, January 10, 2007, ICRP Archives, 2004–2006 Box-13, File A73, Reg No. 02-276 2006 Recommendations.pdf, 1–2. Klein wanted a third round of public consultation, Klein to Holm, January 3, 2007, ibid., 3. The remainder of this file contains many of the comments.

  207. 207.

    Some of these are ICRP Archives, Box G043, Minutes of C1 Bethesda.

  208. 208.

    Klaus Becker, “ICRP 2005—Much Ado About Nothing? Draft of an Open Letter to ICRP,” Manuscript for Strahlenschutzpraxis, 2004-09-03, Box #5, LC3, “12-16-2004.pdf,” 74–8, p. 1.

  209. 209.

    McSorley J. Commenting on Behalf of the Organization [Internet]. Icrp.org. Greenpeace; 2004. Available from: https://www.icrp.org/consultation_viewitem.asp?guid=%7b07A7B32B-137B-4009-8F24-45A21B36B98B%7d, accessed July 13, 2023.

  210. 210.

    ICRP, 2006. The Optimisation of Radiological Protection—Broadening the Process. ICRP Publication 101b. Ann. ICRP 36 (3), https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20101b, accessed August 25, 2023.

  211. 211.

    This and other institutional developments are reviewed in Cousins C. The future of ICRP: toward a centenary and beyond. Annals of the ICRP Volume 45, Issue 1_suppl, June 2016, Pages 5–8, https://doi.org/10.1177/0146645315613480, accessed November 13, 2023.

  212. 212.

    Clement C, Ruehm W, Harrison JD, Applegate KE, Cool D, Larsson CM, et al. Keeping the ICRP recommendations fit for purpose. Journal of Radiological Protection. 41(1390) 2021 Jul 20; https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6498/ac1611, accessed June 25, 2023.

  213. 213.

    Laurier D, Rühm W, Paquet F, Applegate K, Cool D, Clement C. Areas of Research to Support the System of Radiological Protection. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics. 2021 Oct 17;60(4):519–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-021-00947-1, accessed June 25, 2023.

  214. 214.

    This trend is documented in Breitmeier H. Chapter 10: Non-State Actors and Participation in Regime Politics. The Legitimacy of International Regimes. Routledge; 2016.

  215. 215.

    World Nuclear Association. Bristol, September 27–28. ICRP Workshop Programme, https://na.eventscloud.com/website/57139/programme/, accessed November 11, 2023.

  216. 216.

    ICRP. Code of Ethics. Approved by the Main Commission on 2014 April 10. https://www.icrp.org/admin/ICRP%20Code%20of%20Ethics.pdf, accessed November 12, 2023.

  217. 217.

    ICRP, 2018. Ethical foundations of the system of radiological protection. ICRP Publication 138.

    Ann. ICRP 47(1), https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20138, accessed June 25, 2023.

  218. 218.

    Note 131 above, para. 15.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, USA

    Daniel Serwer

Authors
  1. Daniel Serwer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Serwer .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Serwer, D. (2024). Tightening Norms Again and Opening to the Public, 1965–2023. In: Strengthening International Regimes. Palgrave Studies in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53724-0_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation