304 RADIATION STANDARDS, INCLUDING FALLOUT Mr. Ramey. One other question, Mr. Chairman: In some of our earlier discussions we have looked at the Federal Radiation Council guides and the maximum permissible doses established by the NCRP and ICRP. Both of those types of guides do not include medical exposure under their maximum figures. The National Academy of Sctences, I believe, however, did in a sort of additive way as I recall, set up one. Do you think it would be desirable in setting guides that it would not be mandatory or regulatory that the amount of medical exposure to the population be taken into account? Dr. Cuamperzain. This is a most troublesome question. I can again only give you a personal opinion on this because there are people with different opinions. Some who feel there ought to be a bank account from which you can only draw so much. As I look at the hazards of life and of what we have to undergo—how much hazard we have to undergo—in order to do things we want to do, it seems to me that any such limit that you would put on medical use would only be put there to be broken for adequate cause. Consequently I can see no purpose of putting the limiton to begin with. As J indicated a little while ago, if we can appreciably help the health of people for relatively minor risks by quadrupling or even increasing tenfold the radiation exposure, I think we will accept it and we probably should accept it. If we were not going to get very much out of it, I would feel less and less happy about an increase being made. Aspe Lye SREEE REEMT RS I think that even those who are more concerned or who have expressed the most. concern, such as the genuine interest of people in the National Academyof Science genetics group particularly in not wanting to exceed certain levels, they felt that. this ought not to be exceeded without good solid reason. Perhaps they were not as aware of what is the potential trend in the future of benefits to be derived from an increased use of radiation. As long as they set.a warning not to exceed a level on the basis that we could improve what we were doing then, I would agree with them. If youset a level which we should not exceed in the future and then use it to stymie the development. of worthwhile medical procedures, I am against.it. Mr. Rasrey. Actually according to vour figures it has been going down on the average? Dr. CHamBertatn. I am not sure it went down. I am not sure but what the earlier estimates were based on very fragmentary background. But it probably has gone down some. At the same timeit wouldn’t surprise meto see it go up manifold in the next few years. Mr. Ramey. On the average? Dr. CHamper.ain. Productive radiation: ves, sir. Mr. Ramey. Orjust for individuals? Dr. Crasrmeriarn. IT think we have to get prepared for the total use of radiation to increase. T think a great. part of this, however, will be on people who are sick. Hopefully, however, if we can keep them alive longer by doing these procedures then their radiation becomes significant again, Representative Pricer. Thank you very much, Dr. Chamberlain. The committee appreciates having your statement. Seated