aE of these risks may justify the effort required to achieve further limitation. Where the source of exposure is subject to control, it is desirable and reasonable to set specific dose limitations. In this manner the associated risk is judged to be appropriately small in relation to the resulting benefits. The limitation must be set at a sufficiently low level so that any further reduction in risk would not justify the effort required to accomplish it. Such risks to members of the public from man-made sources of radiation should be less than or equal to other risks regularly accepted in every” “te ae ¥ yt ty es metw Se ON: csp et fae. wate ‘ . wee o UPR ee ote Bane eles Bela MDs vswets fay”he” They should ‘also ‘be justifiable in'‘terms of benefits that would not otherwise be received. ICRP has stated that when dose Limits:have been. exceeded. by.a-small- amount, it ‘is génerally more * 09167 2 wes significant that there has been a failure of ¢ontrol than ‘that ‘one “eee Pre ; ‘or more‘individuals have slightly. exceeded ‘the’ linits. “" whytgy ote Fp Sia ee wegen ‘ ese ee Ok oe Bier bu te Oe "Dose limits" for members of the public are intended’ to provide “gtahdards ‘fordesign and‘opération of tadiatton sources’ sothat ‘it is” unlikely that individuals in the public will receive more than a specified dose. The effectiveness is appraised by assessments through sampling procedures in the environment, by statistical caleulations, and by a control of the sources from which the exposure is expected to arise. Measurement of individual doses is not contemplated. Actual doses received by individuals will vary according to age, size, metabolism, and customs, as well as variations in their environ- ment. These variations are said to make it impossible to determine the maximum individual doses. In practice it is feasible to take account of these sources of variability by the selection of appropriate 2