Appendix B
Editorial Comments
Sentence construction, consistency in word usage, and writing style influence clarity. For example, the term conservative is used in many places in the report, but its meaning is not clear. When used with estimates as in “conservative estimate” is the degree of conservatism always the same? Most of the comments that follow identify places where changes or improvements are needed.
Page vii, fourth line from the bottom
“simulations” refer to the three scenarios-that RAC generated?
Page vii
It would help if the .pdf files were constructed without down-sampling of images (for example, set the Adobe Distiller option to “print-optimized”). Some scanned images suffer from poor resolution in the Adobe (.pdf) file; the images in the Word (.doc) files are much better. Figure B–5 is a good example.
Page 1–2, Figure 1–1
The resolution of this map (in the .pdf and .doc files) is inadequate.
Page 2–7
How else than “measured by instruments” (Particles found offsite…)
Page 2–8
“Historical experience, illustrated by the particle releases discussed above”?
Page 2–10
“The relative importance of that release rate can be compared to the peak monthly…”: The logic is wrong. The importance of that release is being compared with the importance of the peak monthly…; or perhaps it is the importance of comparing that release rate to the peak monthly.
Page 2–27
“A cautious uncertainty factor”: What is this, and how was it used?
Page 2–28
“Cautious estimate”: What is the difference between a cautious estimate and a conservative estimate?
Page 3–9
In the second line before Equation 3.2.2–4 change “expresses” to “determines”. On the same page, underlining of names of authors in a citation is inconsistent.
Page 3–11
In section 3–2.3, Lines 4–5, “deliberately conservative” vs. best estimate? In “deliberately bias the estimates upwards”, bias is used incorrectly.
Page 3–14
In Section 3.2.4, Line 9, what does “conservative overbiasing” mean?
Page 3–15
Paragraph beginning “Generic predictions…”?
Page 3–20
Second line from the bottom: “dose presentation”?
Page 3–21
In “The following except from the table of committed absorbed dose”, the word should be “excerpt”.
Page 3–22
The risk estimates presented in the table on this page are superfluous relative to the task order for the report, albeit they are there to demonstrate one of the capabilities of the HCalc program, which, was developed for CDC in response to the task order. The table also lacks labels to indicate whether the “mortality risks” are lifetime risks or for some other period, whether the coefficients given are per sievert or per whatever doses were used. In short, the table is vague and uninterpretable.
In “program can the executed”, the phrase should be “can be”.
Page 3–29
“methods” is misspelled.
Justification is needed for the claim that “it is suitable for their implementation provided the programming is done in a disciplined and methodical manner”. Presumably, no one would want to do programming in any other way.
How were “object oriented methods” implemented?
Page 3–31
Note consistent use of “he”.
Page 3–34
In Line 6, what is the evidence for “persists as extremely relevant to this work”?
The middle of the page says, “conservative value for the probability of contact expected for”. Conservative in what sense? “Expected” by whom, and on what basis?
Page 3–39
Section 3.5.2, Line 1, says “The SURVEY spreadsheet conducts the exposure assessment…”. What does “conducts” mean in this context?
Page 4–28
“The units (106 µCi/gm) used in 1950”: This should be 10-6.
“are equivalent to those used in 1949 (mµCi/kg), so the maps in Figures 4–22 and 4–23 can be compared as if the same units were used.”: They are not “equivalent”; they are identical. So it is not “as if the same units were used”, but “because they use the same units”.
Page A–6
Apparently, EPA (1995) is accessible on the Internet. The URL should be given. Are other documents cited that are accessible on the Internet?
