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