grams for atomic veterans. One way to implement this recommendation would be to establish an independent advisory board.
There should be a comprehensive re-evaluation of the methods being used to estimate doses and their uncertainties to establish more credible upper-bound doses to atomic veterans.
A comprehensive manual of standard operating procedures for the conduct of dose reconstructions should be developed and maintained.
A state-of-the-art program of quality assurance and quality control for dose reconstructions should be developed and implemented.
The principle of benefit of the doubt should be consistently applied in all dose reconstructions in accordance with applicable federal regulations.
Interaction and communication with the atomic veterans should be improved. For example, veterans should be allowed to review the scenario assumptions used in their dose reconstructions before the dose assessments are sent to the Department of Veterans Affairs for claim adjudication.
More effective approaches should be established to communicate the meaning of information on radiation risk to the veterans. In addition to presenting general information on radiation risk, information should be communicated to veterans who file claims regarding the significance of their doses in relation to their diseases.
The community of atomic veterans and their survivors should be notified when the methods for calculating doses have changed so that they can ask for updated dose assessments and re-evaluation of their prior claims.