•       

    treated as routine practices, thereby affording more complete control of the radiation exposure. Missions amenable to control as practices might include security details, decontamination of vehicles, and other scenarios in which hostile action is not expected.

  • 2.  

    Develop and state an explicit radiation protection philosophy that defines missions as falling under the framework of either a practice or an intervention. Practices would be subject to modified requirements of the Army's existing occupational radiation protection program as previously described. It is likely that the situation in Bosnia would fall into this category. Under the committee's recommendations, soldiers would be considered radiation workers if they are assigned military duties that have the potential for radiation exposures that could result in doses in excess of the International Commission on Radiological Protection limits for the public (ICRP, 1991a)—1 mSv per year. A revision of the existing exposure guidance in the ACE Directive would govern those situations that are of an emergency nature and would be managed as interventions. In both cases, keeping doses as low as reasonably achievable will continue to be of primary importance.

  • 3.  

    Clearly state in the policy paragraph of the subsequent versions of the ACE Directive the definitions adopted for practices and interventions in the necessary military context. The procedures that follow the policy statement should address practice and intervention separately. It would seem reasonable for the commander to have the authority to determine which of these frameworks to follow based upon the military mission.

Terminology in the ACE Directive

The committee recommends that the Army:

  • 4.  

    Not use the term low level to describe the radiation dose range of 50–700 milligray (mGy) (5–70 rad). Low level may be an appropriate descriptor when comparing these doses to those that may be experienced from the detonation of a nuclear weapon. In the broader context of radiation protection, however, low level clearly implies much lower doses.

  • 5.  

    Use terms other than no risk and normal risk for the risk state categories labeled RES 0 and RES 1A in the table of exposure guidance in Annex A of the ACE Directive. To describe any nonzero dose as no risk is inconsistent with current international positions on the effects of radiation. Likewise, the term normal risk incorrectly implies no additional risk to that from natural background radiation exposures, even though such exposures are considered to contribute very small, possibly negligible, health risks.

  • 6.  

    Avoid the term radiological hazard when describing the exposure of soldiers to radiation, unless the hazard refers to a specific detrimental effect. For most cases in the ACE Directive radiological hazard simply means radiation.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement