Dose Limit Changes to the Lens of the Eye & Its Regulatory Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The commission on radiological protection through publication 118 decided to recommend a change to the eye dose limit in 2011. ICRP recommendations made in publications, especially ‘publication 60’ and its subsequent update ‘publication 103’ has served as standards for regulatory authorities worldwide in limiting ionizing radiation exposure both to workers and members of the public. For example in Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) generally directly adopts recommendations from ICRP. The previous dose limit for the lens of the eye was 150 mSv year-1, based on Publication 60 and 103. Regulatory agencies worldwide have been using this value and subsequently nuclear facilities, hospitals and universities have designed their radiation protection program based on this dose limit for several decades. The new revised eye dose limit now being equivalent to the whole body dose limit will pose significant challenges for sectors where the eye exposure was not characterized as the limit was previously five times over the whole body exposure. A two-step approach was used in conducting this study, firstly a through literature search was conducted on the effects of ionizing radiation to the eye, its radiobiology, fundamentals in established both dose limits was analyzed. Secondly, the authors spent time researching institutions that use ionizing radiation and interviewed engineers, medical physicists, radiation safety officers and regulators from a wide array of fields and industries. Based on the ICRP publications, the review of the literature and the interviews conducted with the nuclear industry, there is consensus in Canada and among IAEA member states that the dose limit for the lens of the eye should be reduced from the original proposed limit of 150 mSv per year. However not to the recommendations suggested by ICRP 118, but, to a standard reasonable and an achievable limit that is 50 mSv per year.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".