Does "Reference Man" promote a gender bias in radiation protection?

[JCR103]

I came across an academic article by Mary Olson entitled "Disproportionate Impact of Radiation and Radiation Regulation" (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03080188.2019.1603864). Based on data in BEIR VII, she illustrates that women are more sensitive to ionizing radiation than men. Then she argues the Reference Man standard for public exposure of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which assumes a white male 20-30 years of age, clearly does not represent the bulk of the population (particularly women)--and is therefore an outmoded construct that actually contributes to disproportionate harm to women, given their particular vulnerability. That is, public exposure standards are established around Reference Man rather than women and children. In turn, if the public exposure standards took account of the harm to women--rather than some hypothetical Reference Man--the standards would be more realistic.

My question is...does Reference Man contribute to a disproportionate harm imposed upon women from ionizing radiation in the U.S. given undue reliance on the Reference Man construct?

 

[Drakkith]

My question is...does Reference Man contribute to a disproportionate harm imposed upon women from ionizing radiation in the U.S. given undue reliance on the Reference Man construct?

If we accept that women are more sensitive than men to ionizing radiation, then it will always be true that disproportionate harm is done to women (and to everyone who is more sensitive) than to men aged 21-30, no matter what the standard is. So in my eyes the question is really whether the current standard protects women enough to be acceptable, or whether it needs to be stricter. And I have no answer to that.