bh
oo
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In anticipation of the widespread increased
use of nuclear energy, it is time to think anew
about radiation protection. We need standards
for the major categories of radiation exposure,
based insofar as possible on risk estimates and
-on cost-benefit analyses which compare theac-
tivity involving radiation with the alternative
options. Such analyses, crude though they
must be at this time, are needed to provide a
better public understanding of the issues and a
sound basis for decision. These analyses should
seek to clarify such matters as: (a) the environmenta] and biological risks of given developments, (b) a comparison of these risks with the
benefits to be gained, (c) the feasibility and
worth of reducing these environmental and
biological] risks, (d) the net benefit to societyof
a given development as compared to the alter-
native options.
In the foreseeable future, the major contribu-
tors to radiation exposure of the population
will continue to be natural background with an
average whole-body dose of about 100 mrem/
year, and medicai applications which nowcontribute comparable exposures to varions tissues of the body. Medical exposures are not
under control or guidance by regulation or law
at present. The use of ionizing radiation in
medicine is of tremendous value but it is essential to reduce exposures since this can be accomplished without loss of benefit and at relatively low cost. The aim is not only to reduce
the radiation exposure to the individual but
background) and the exposure of any individua) kept to a small fraction of background pro-
vided that there is: (a) attainment and long-
term maintenance of anticipated engineering
performance, (b) adequate managementof radioactive wastes, (c) control of sabotage and di-
version of fissionable material, (d) avoidance of
catastrophic accidents.
The present Radiation Protection Guide for
the general population was based on genetic.
considerations and conforms to the BEAR
Committee recommendations that the average
individual exposure be less than 10 R (Roent-
gens) before the mean age of reproduction (30
years). The FRC did not include medica] radiation in its limits and set 5 rem as the 30-year
limit (0.17 rem per year).
Present estimates of genetic risk are expressed in four ways: (a) Risk Relative to Natural Background Radiation. Exposure to manmade radiation below the level of background
radiation will produce additiona! effects that
are less in quantity and no different in kind
from those which man has experienced and has
been able to tolerate throughout his history.
(b) Risk Estimates for Specific Genetic Conditions. The expected effect of radiation can be
compared with current incidence of genetic
effects by use of the concept of doubling dose
(the dose required to produce a number of mutations equal to those which occur naturally).
Based mainly on experimental studies in the
mouse and Drosophila and with some support
also to have procedures carried out with maximum efficiency so that there can be a continv-
from observations of human populations in
a minimum rediation exposure.
Concern about the neciear power industry
arises because of its potential magnitude and
widespread distribution. Based on experience
to date and present engineering judgment, the
contribution to radiation exposure averaged
over the U. S. population from the developing
the range of 20-200 rem. It is calculated that
ing increase in medical] benefits accompanied by
nuclear power industry can remain less than
about 1 mrem per year (about 1% of natural
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the doubling dose for
chronic radiation in man is estimated to fall in
the effect of 170 mrem per year (or 5 rem per
30-year reproduction generation) would cause
in the first generation between 100 and 1800
cases of serious, dominant or X-linked diseases
and defects per year (assuming 3.6 million
births annually in the U.S.). This is an incidence of 0.05%. At equilibrium (approached after several generations) these numbers would
ower
DOE ARCHIVES
S001 75
405-997 OTR - 2