318 RADIATION STANDARDS, INCLUDING FALLOUT of experience in working with other radionuclides at Hanford no internal depositions of radionuclides in excess of applicable permissible limits have occurred except for a few minor transitory cases involving materials with a short biological half-life. The contribution made by industry to the radiation exposure received by the average persons living in the vicinity of the installations continues to be but a small fraction of that received from natural background and, for the most part, is overshadowed by the contribution from worldwide fallout. Although the average exposure from industry to the reproductive organs of a genetically significant population consisting of a few million people cannot be stated precisely, it must certainly be only some small fraction of 1 millirem per person per year. The dose from natural background ordinarily falls in the range of 100 to 200 millirems per year, and the gonad dose from fallout is probably on the order of 5 millirems per yearat this time. Situations may arise in the immediate vicinity of large atomic energy plants which lead to doses several times those which currently exist from fallout. Persons with uncommon food habits or other idiosyncrasies fall into this classification. Because of the relatively few individuals involved, somatic rather than genetic considerations of the significance of the exposures are appropriate. Bstimates for such persons living in the vicinity of the Hanford project suggest that their doses may approximate 30 percent of the applicable limits. The greatly expanding availability of whole body counters in the last few years has provided the technical means for measuring the radioactive body burdens in many cases with comparative ease. The present areas of uncertainty can be substantially reduced in the next few years. Accidents associated with radiation sources range in severity from the minor spills of radioactive contaminants to serious nuclear excursions (criticality incidents) sometimes involving the loss of life. Because they are readily characterized and extensively reported, the frequency of occurrence of criticality type accidents can be watched as an indication of performance. Table II shows the experience in this country to date. Desirably there should be no accidents of this type. Realistically, some must be anticipated in an expanding technology which is heavily dependent upon new research and development. Within this framework the trend to date should not be viewed as unfavorable. The feasibility and cost of maintaining appropriate levels of radiation protection are important factors in the ultimate development of a thriving atomic energy industry. In these phases we find nothing new to report. A good quality of protection is achievable, although not too cheaply, as long as the applicable basic limits continue to be more or less stable. There is no evidence which seems to call for a major change. Stiffening of some limits could cause considerable difficulty to the industry. It is more likely that some specific limits, for example, for plutonium deposition, may be demonstrated to have much more than ample safety margins. In any case, the organizations which provided data for our survey pointed to the need for sound basic standards unencumbered as far as possible by detailed administrative and procedural regulation. This is the avenue deemed most likely to provide the stimulus for innovation and im- provement in radiation protection. The careful control and work climate in atomic energy plants which is responsible for good radiological performance is also refiected in outstanding safety performance in other areas as well. This is evident from table III which compares the number oflost-time injuries from all types of accidents experienced by AEC contractors with similar experience by all industries. Continued performance of this type should lead to a better appreciation by the general public that atomic energy installations are among the safest of all industrial plants. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In brief summary, there has been no outstanding development or basic change with respect to radiation protection since 1960. The key questions identified in 1960 remain the key questions in 1962. (11) It is natural, then, that there has been no outstanding development or major change in the industrial situation with respect to radiation protection in this interval. Such minor changes as are reported are generally in the favorable direction. Exceptions are a growing concern over possible conflicts of interpretation where more than one group has real or implied authority to set standards, and most importantly an almost universally adverse reaction to such code and regulation as pinpoints specific methods and administrative procedures. sepaRaRSEPRENBESBHabcherlagsegdyase: Shh ea