NAME:
1890
HAP 133080
PAGE
81
involved.
1894
I think part of the question is,
will the decision be
1892
based
1893.
upon the potential risk that is involved?
upon the
doses which
are
estimated
and
projecteafor
WHAT IS AM HecPrTo srs
Clearly, there is no standard for risk, out werisk is
1894
obviously
a
What
vice
very
is
personal
acceptable
thing.
to
you may not be
acceptable
to me;
versa.
1898
Mz.
YATES.
1899
Dr.
WACHHOLZ.
1900
standard
1901
look
1902
year accumulated dose and divided by 30 to get an annual
1903
average.
at
of
500
the
I know.
table
1905
Dr.
BENDER.
1906
Dr.
WACHHOLZ.
have
1908
receive
gone
they
if
I
of
standards.
there
have
year,
here,
In this
they
have
a
Federal
very superficial
taken the
30-
Absolutely right.
On
the
dose
other
which
hand,
our
SerENnrisTS
laboratory peepre
people
are
likely
to
a year-by-year basis.
In some
years,
it is much
lower
than this;
I
think,
1910
it
1911
projecting in an area that we really don't have
1912
responsibility
is
is
am incorrect.
through the
on
terms
millirem per
Correct me
1907
In
FoR THE Mayimum Exeosry i oivi per,
1904
19909
considerably higher
for
than this.
we
since
are essentially
in some
and I
in the
years,
am
dose
.
19143
1974
and
prediction business--
Mz.
YATES.
Would you expect the earlier years to have