RE RADIATION STANDARDS, INCLUDING FALLOUT 299 Representative Price. On the use of the fluoroscope, are there any records of radiation injuries to the patients? Forget the patient for a minute. But the attending doctor or technician. Is there some place you can go to the record of radiation injuries? Dr. Cuamprrusin. I am not sure I understand, sir. From fluoro- scopy particularly ? Representative Price. Yes; from the use of fluoroscope instruments. Dr. CyamMBer“ain. With modern machines we just don’t see somatic injuries to doctors and technicians any more. As you know there were many of these people in the early days of radiology and scattered instances of people who simply didn’t use any precautionsat all from as recently as 20 or 25 yearsago. Representative Price. Some of the older physicians are suffering from it? Dr. Cuamper.arn. That is right, from what they got that long ago; yes, sir. Nowadays we just simply don’t get into this order of dosage even out in the hinterland. I think it is practically unknown for people to use fluoroscopes to the point of demonstrable damage. However, in modern departments we wearfilm badges and doall the control methods to insure that we don’t get anvwhere near demonstrableeffects from radiation and stay below the radiation guide levels. Most of us stay down to a third or a quarter of the most stringent levels. hairman Horirierp. Has there been any study of the degree of radiation from television sets in order that you might give us a relative figure of the amount that is involved there with children who hover around these television sets for hours on end and in relaticn to fallout radiation ? Dr. Cuamperziarn. I know of the one major paper on this by Dr. Braestrup and a coauthor whose name I can’t think of for the moment. The amounts given in this were very, very low. The question was whether the radiation amount was as hazardous to the child as the intellectual hazard of watching it for so manyhours. It was getting down to something like two one-hundredths of a rad per year, or something like that for prolonged watching. I am sorry I don’t recall the exact figures. That one paper is the standard one, I think. Chairman Hoxtrrevp. Is there a strong protective scrutiny of the sets for that purpose? Dr. Cuamperiain. It is my understanding that it is. I am sure someoneelse could tell you more properly about this. This, incidentally, has to do with conventional receivers. There is some hazard in projection receivers for which they have to take considerably more precaution. But, of course, children would not be involved there. Representative Price. Mr. Hosmer. Representative Hosmer. Dr. Chamberlain, why should it be necessary in connection with a profession which dedicates itself to the health and well-being of mankind to have Government police that profession and its use of radiological equipment ? Dr. Cuamperriain. I don’t knowif I can answer that question, sir. There are some precedents, of course, in it. In State licensure of physicians, physicians stand examination; presumably for the protec- tion of the public and the insuring of some reasonable level of stand- ards that physicians are licensed in the various States. I think my own feeling is that regulatory measures are less effective generally 85853—62—pt. 120 SRD HFBOOHO > br Soph tereTMIEsATCSetteeRNAT CEDRE OF Seta