Views of the workers

Full text: I hope that it is not symptomatic of the radiological protection business that I am making a last minute unscheduled intervention of behalf of the workers. I wonder too whether the Conference should consider the fact that there are no facilities for organized labour or indeed the public to comment during the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) consultation process regarding its recommendations. I have just a few points to make. As a non-scientific participant I can see that we have available accurate dosimetry which can be applied everywhere. This is a most important point. But a problem for the Conference is the different position of developed and developing countries and I would say straight away that I could not accept lower national standards of radiological protection simply to allow that State to catch up economically. We have heard a lot during the Conference about the application of ALARA. Perhaps I could introduce something different, that standards should be 'AHARA' - as high as reasonably achievable. There is no point, however, in imposing criteria that will be ignored, so there may have to be a period of optimization between developing and developed countries. There is every evidence to show that we are here at this Conference to help each other and this may provide an example. But I did not see the causation probability calculations yesterday distinguishing between developing and non-developed countries in relation to the effect of dosages on the human being. Those same calculations also made no distinction between human-made and what I have come to recognize this week as NORM radiation exposure, so it follows again that the worker in a western State's nuclear power plant should have the same standards as underground workers in other countries. This is just an example but at least the same philosophy driving those standards should be applied. No one will argue against the protection of the unborn child and I am not sure that we have a complete answer to this - providing equal opportunities and at the same time ensuring that there is no harm even before a pregnancy is noticed let alone reported. I think more work is needed on this particular subject. I liked the comment made earlier this week that few managers - or even chief executives - expect to receive a radiation dose in their office. I don't think anything was intended here by my scientific colleague but the need to consult, listen and take note of the radiation worker should be obvious. If it is not, then it should be written into the regulatory procedure as being necessary. After all, for each pair of hands engaged by an employer or an operator there is a free brain as well. If the intention is to 'simplify' and to 'unify' the present system of ICRP recommendations and to 'focus on real problems' we can finish here today satisfied only if the situation of the worker, worldwide, in coal mine, nuclear plant, hospital, or wherever, is such that they leave their family at home and go to work and return to them safely day after day after day and without harm whatsoever. If that then needs major changes to the ICRP recommendations then so be it. (author)