4 c) There should be an upper limit of man- made non-medical exposure for individu- als in the genera] population such that the risk of serious injury from somatic effects in such individuals is very smal] relative to risks that are normally accept- ed. Exceptions to this limit in specific cas- d) es should be allowable only if it can be demonstrated that meeting it would cause individuals to be exposed to other risks greater than those from the radiation avoided. There should be an upper limit of man- made non-medical exposure for the gener- al population. The average exposure permitted for the population should be considerably lower than the upper limit permitted for individuals. e) Medical radiation exposure can and should be reduced considerablybylimiting its use to clinically indicated procedures utilizing efficient exposure techniques and optimal operation of radiation equipment. Consideration should be given to the following: 1) Restriction of the use of radiation for public health survey purposes, unless there is a reasonable probability of significant detection of disease. 2) Inspection and licensing of radiation and ancillary equipment. 3) Appropriate training and certification of involved personnel. Gonad shielding (especially shielding the testis) is strongly recommended as a simple and highly efficient way to reduce the Ge netically Significant Dose. ~~’ f Guidance for the nuclear power industry should be established on the basis of costbenefit analysis, particularly taking into account the total biological and environmental] risks of the .arious options availabje and the cost-effectiveness of reducing these risks. The quantifying of the “as low as practicable’ concept and consideration of the net effect on the welfare of society should be encouraged. £) In addition to normal operating conditions in the nuclear power industry, careful consideration should be given to the probabilities and estimated effects of uncontrolled releases. It has been estimated that a catastrophic accident leading to melting of the core of a large nuclear reactor could result in mortality comparable tothat of a severe natura! disaster. Hence extraordinary efforts to minimize this risk are clearly called for. h) Occupational and emergency exposure limits have not been specifically considered but should be based on those sec- tions of the report relating to somatic risk to the individual}. i) In regard to possible effects of radiation on the environment, it is felt that if the guidelines and standards are accepted as adequate for man then it is highly unlike ly that populations of other living organisms would be perceptibly harmed. Nevertheless, ecological studies should be improved and strengthened and programs put in force to answer the following ques- tions about release of radioactivity to the environment: (1) how much, where, and what type of radioactivity is released; (2) how are these materials moved through the environment; (3) where are they concentrated in natural systems; (4) how long might it take for them to move through these systems to a position of contact with man; (5) what is their effect on the environmentitself; (6) how can this information be used as an early warning sys- tem to prevent potential problems from developing? j) Every effort should be made to assure ac- curate estimates and predictions of radia- tion equivalent dosages from all existing and planned sources. This requires use of present knowledge on transport in the environment, on metabolism, and on relative biologica) efficiencies of radiation as well as further research on manyaspects. DOE ARCHIVES 9001477