wT
acute radiation doses substantially above- LOOr, ‘ther
-is grave risk that their commands _ will rapidly. ‘become' ineffective as
fighting units.
“Question 2.
What dosage will render an air crew inefficient, tha
is, unable to compiete a mission, during a» Flight of one to three hours,
- four to 12 hours, 12 to 48 hours?
Answer.
In ail three cases if radiation dosage to flight crew mef-
bers is held below 75r,radiation exposure will be unimportani in deter-
mining the success or failure of a mission provided the crew members h
not previously received an appreciable amount of radiation.
In all thre
cases radiation doses substantially above {5r, combined with human stregses
associated with military aviation missions in wartime, are considered ta
very seriously reduce the odds for successful completion of -a mission.
Question 3. How often may.an aircraft crew accept an exposure 9
2or per mission and still be a reasonable risk for subsequent missions?
Answer.
it is prubable that at least
8 missions can be carried
out at weeklyor longer intervals, with exposure of ¢5Sr per mission, bef
fore the chance of mission failure becomes large due either to illness
during the mission.or significant general deterioration in health and
ability. More missions may be feasible, but personnel should be carefufily
checked and evaluated tefore each mission and particularily before a dedision to permit greater exposure than 200r total in these divided doses
is made.
The possibility shouid not be ignored that cumulative radiation
doses to the entire body above 200r may substantially. reduce the life
expectancy of the irradiated individual.
Question 4. A submarine crew is receiving 25r per mission.
many missions shouid it be allowed to make?
Answer.
dv
The answer is substantially the same as to Question 3
It is probable that at least eight missions can be carried out. Pers@nnel
ought to be carefully checked andevaluated after each mission. The
ssibility of substantial reduction in life expectancy by radiation doses
totaling over 200r should not be ignored.
Biology Branch
Human genetics. At the November meeting of the Biology and Mahicine Advisory Committee the question of supporting work in human gendtics
was discussed.
In compliance with the general tenor of the discussi
@ proposal for investigation of certain human mitation rates was invJted
from Dr. James V. Neel of the University of Michigan who had discussdd
‘this problem on several previous occasions with Dr. Zelle. Dr.
Neelfs
ah. oO
proposal will be discussed at the January meeting of the Advisory Co
-
12>
-
f
|: ="
Field offigs shoald ‘uhérefore-‘assume“that.Gegabstantial numbers
of ‘their. men receiv